Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL (ROWLEY LANE) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further progress has been made in the Burnham machinery about the teachers' pay claim.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): The claim for schoolteachers in England and Wales has been referred to arbitration. The arbitral hearing opens tomorrow.

Mr. Marshall: How does the Secretary of State expect the teachers to react when they compare their miserable pay award with the Government's recommendations of 14 per cent. for top civil servants and 18 per cent. for judges? Would they not be right to conclude that the Government value the contribution of top civil servants and judges far more than that of the hard-working teaching profession?

Sir Keith Joseph: It is of no value to the teachers if, for lack of what is thought by a review body to be the right scale, Britain lacks recruits of the right quality to man the top of the judiciary and the Civil Service. The teachers must take account of what the employing authorities reckon they can afford.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State relying on widespread unemployment to ensure that there are teachers of high quality? When will that process catch up with the judges? Are the arbitrators working in the knowledge that the Government will make resources available to meet a reasonable recommendation, or is their whole function being undermined by the knowledge that the Government will make no more money available for a teachers' pay increase?

Sir Keith Joseph: The numbers involved in the former category are quite different from those in the latter. The economic circumstance of supply and demand for teachers is a factor that must be taken into account.

Mr. Durant: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the pay increases received by teachers in the past three years?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that teachers received a substantial make-good pay award under the arrangements made by Professor Clegg. The review body found that the judiciary has severely lagged behind the recommendations that have been made in previous years.

Overseas Students (Fees)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has now trade of the impact of higher fees on students from poor countries who would like to study in the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): No full analysis of enrolments by students from developing countries in 1981–82 can be made at present. When that analysis is available there will be an assessment of the situation of such students in the light of the forthcoming Overseas Students Trust report on future policy options.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that it is impossible for a Member of Parliament to visit a Commonwealth country or to meet Commonwealth visitors to Britain without hearing strong expressions of anger at what we are doing to the aspirations of their students? Will he take more positive steps as a matter of urgency to ensure that poor students are not debarred from coming to Britain?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend and other Ministers are aware of the anxieties.

Sir Paul Bryan: Am I right to believe that there will be no reconsideration of Government policy on overseas student's fees until the Overseas Students Trust report is published? If so, when may we expect the report?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We shall receive the report within the next week or two.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that rather than attracting the best and brightest we are already attracting the rich, privileged and second rate?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.

Mr. McNally: That is exactly the information that is coming out of universities.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that many academics feel that they are academic pimps, going around the world for overseas students? Moreover, is he worried that instead of the great tradition of attracting students who were often at variance with their Governments, Government policy is increasingly ensuring that only those who agree with their Governments have the ability and opportunity to study in British universities? Does he agree that that is a great break with our tradition?

Mr. Waldegrave: In view of the hon. Gentleman's rather enthusiastic language, it is as well to remind him that it was the Labour Adminstration, for which he was then working, that began the process of raising overseas students' fees. Moreover, it is a little insulting to the tens of thousands of students who still come here, despite the increase in fees, to speak as the hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. Whitehead: Are not the worst figures in the general fall-off in the number of overseas students coming


to this country those for students enrolling in non-advanced courses, which show a decline of some 37 per cent.? Does the Minister agree that this may be a serious consequence of the Government's policy, as such students often come from poor backgrounds in poor countries where there are no analogous courses?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We shall wish to consider that matter in the light of the OST report.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that I strongly resent the allegation of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) that persons such as those who went from Lancaster to impress upon other countries the excellence of universities should be described as "academic pimps"? When the review comes out, will it be possible to make scholarships available to poor students from poor countries who undertake to return to their countries to give them the benefit of their education?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) got a little carried away. I remind the House that the ODA allocated £42 million last year for the purposes to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall review her suggestion and others when we receive the report.

Schools (Corporate Worship)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department will undertake a survey of local authorities to establish how they are fulfilling their statutory obligation to provide for an act of corporate worship at morning assembly in schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have made it clear that local education authorities should keep their provision for religious education and the act of worship under review, bearing in mind the statutory requirements on these matters. We have at present no plans for a special survey of current practice, but we are always ready to receive representations about the act of worship.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is it true that the statutory obligation is now widely evaded? Is my hon. Friend aware that one school in my constituency—the aptly named Charles Darwin school at Biggin Hill—in its 10-year history has never provided a corporate act of worship at morning assembly, and that the headmaster tells me that he does not believe that hymns and prayers are any longer relevant? If the council will do nothing about this, what does my hon. Friend suggest that the parents should do?

Dr. Boyson: Section 25(1) of the 1944 Act plainly states that
the school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school,
subject to the exemption of pupils whose parents do not want them to attend.
There are between 20,000 and 25,000 schools in this country, but the Department receives no more than six complaints per year. If my hon. Friend will write with details of the case, we shall take it up with the local authority, because these matters should be dealt with initially at local level. If that is not successful, we shall have to deal with it at our level.

Mr. Marks: Would not the matter be taken more seriously if the Parliament that insists on such corporate acts of worship had more than a 2 per cent. attendance at its own corporate acts of worship?

Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, such attendance is not compulsory here. Moreover, I am sure that if our worship were held in the early morning, as it is in schools, there would be a full attendance.

Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman takes such a properly firm line on this, why has the Government's response to the Select Committee been so vague and wishy-washy?

Dr. Boyson: The Government have said repeatedly that the 1944 Act should be enforced, with the teaching of religious education in schools and the statutory assembly at the beginning of the day. We have also said that if complaints are made to us that that is not being done, we shall certainly look into them.

Universities (Contractions)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in considering the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in its eleventh report of Session 1981–82 on the possibility of allowing universities further time to adjust to contractions.

Mr. Waldegrave: The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers is a matter for the University Grants Committee, to which it was addressed.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that that answer will not wash, because, as the Committee of Vice Chancellors pointed out, action can be taken on the recommendations only if money is forthcoming from the Government? Instead of telling the universities that they should alter their statutes in order to sack more academic and non-academic staff, will the Minister consider cost-effectiveness as it relates to the hardest-hit universities, such as Bradford, Hull, Keele, Salford and Stirling?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says that my answer will not wash, but the recommendation was addressed to the UGC. The UGC will shortly be sending out letters detailing the distributions for 1982–83, and there will be a number of changes in the recommendations.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the UGC often seems out of touch with the universities that are doing most to comply with the Government's view that they should become technological? Does he agree that a 12-month extension of the contraction period would help and would be financially and scholastically more viable?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not accept that the UGC is out of touch on this. I believe that it is more closely in touch than any other group of people in this country. Indeed, in the case of Salford it has granted an extension of one year.

Mr. Christopher Price: If, late next year or early in 1984, a university gives notice that it will have to declare itself bankrupt within the next few days, will that announcement be of any interest to the Minister? Will he simply say that it is a matter for the UGC, or will he feel that he has some responsibility for that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The UGC has made it clear that it does not believe that that situation will arise. Nor do I.

Truancy

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence his Department has as to the principal causes of truancy.

Sir Keith Joseph: Research evidence points to factors such as the temperament of the truanting children, the attitude of their parents and family, and social background. I believe that the suitability of curricula and the effectiveness of teaching also contribute.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable degree of consumer rejection and that we should consider widening the possibilities for pupils over the age of 14 to undertake courses and development not necessarily confined to the classroom?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that there is something in what my hon. Friend says, although I am not so sure that he is right to emphasise the degree to which work occurs outside the classroom. The Cockcroft committee recommended, for instance, that mathematics may arouse more motivation and better performance if its application to adult life and work is taught. I am sure that there are lessons there for other parts of the curriculum.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister extend his research in this matter to discover why there is so much truancy in the Palace of Westminster, particularly from this Chamber?

Sir Keith Joseph: We all come here under varying compulsions, but our attendance is not subject to the law as is the attendance of schoolchildren during compulsory periods.

Independent Sector

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to introduce any further proposals to encourage the independent sector of education.

Sir Keith Joseph: I believe that our education system as a whole can only benefit from the diversity that a flourishing independent sector brings. That sector's success does not necessarily turn on initiatives from the centre and I have no plans for further legislation or other proposals.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am delighted to hear that he has no further plans to encourage the independent sector of education? Quite apart from the expense of the assisted places scheme, does he agree that such a scheme can only devalue the Government's attitude to the vital State education system and detract attention from the need to help in our schools those who require the greatest attention and expenditure?

Sir Keith Joseph: On the contrary, I believe that the assisted places scheme is entirely justified to remedy part of the Labour Government's wicked act in abolishing grammar and direct grant schools.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that co-operation between the independent and maintained sectors can do nothing but valuable work for each? In

particular, does he agree that teachers should be able to serve their probationary year in independent schools and be approved in the same way as in maintained schools? Does he agree that there is unfairness in this respect?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to stress that there should be mutual understanding between the two sectors. There is in fact an interaction, depending on equality, between the public and private sectors. The question of probation raises complicated issues which my colleagues and I are now examining.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Secretary of State believes that central initiatives are inappropriate, will he make arrangements with his right hon. Friends to ensure that the current financial legislation makes provision for the charging of value added tax on school fees, the withdrawal of charity status, and make many other adjustments so that we can recoup the several scores of millions of pounds that now benefit the so-called private sector of British education?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir. I leave such vindictive and destructive initiatives to emanate from the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends. I did not say that central initiatives are inappropriate. I said that, mercifully, the private sector does not depend upon them.

Expenditure Cuts

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effects of the 4 per cent. cut in education spending envisaged in the public expenditure White Paper.

Sir Keith Joseph: The White Paper—Cmnd. 8494—sets out the Government's plans for a 3 per cent. increase in spending on education in the current financial year and the implications for each sector of education.

Mr. Dormand: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the restrictions that have already been made in education and the fact that a 4 per cent. cut, contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will have a most serious effect on education? There is evidence that it has already happened. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the widening gap between public and private standards of education can be potentially dangerous?

Sir Keith Joseph: As the school population is falling there is an opportunity for some economy in public spending while still maintaining pupil-teacher ratios and real spending on each child at the present record level. To make doubly sure, the Government have made further reductions in higher education and in provision for school meals rather than in school education.

Mr. Forman: As education spending places such a large burden on local authorities and on ratepayers, what progress is my right hon. Friend making towards the possibility of a specific grant from central Government to carry the cost of teachers' salaries?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is a different question, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the Government canvassed that as one alternative in their discussion paper on rates and are now considering the answers from the consultations.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that he must revise his expenditure plans if he is to respond to the


report of Her Majesty's inspectors that the maintenance of standards is threatened by current policies and that any improvement is not possible within those constraints?

Sir Keith Joseph: Much as I respect Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the evidence in its report, it does not follow that quality exactly marches with resources.

Mr. Dobson: In view of Her Majesty's inspectors' report on the effects of the Government's cuts in the education service to date, including such consequences as the removal of modern languages and design and technology and the threat of the removal of English and mathematics from the curriculum of some secondary schools, does the Secretary of State agree that his words "wicked", "vindictive", and "destructive" could properly be applied to his education policies, which affect 90 per cent. of children?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir, I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman if a Labour Government had intitiated the publication of the annual report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate.

School Meals

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures available for the numbers (a) taking school meals and (b) receiving free meals in Liverpool; and how these compare with those in 1979.

Dr. Boyson: The returns from the school meals census for autumn 1981 show that 37,960 pupils in Liverpool took a school meal, of whom 21,523 received them free. The comparable figures for 1979 were 50,075 and 19,874.

Mr. Parry: Is not that reply disturbing? Is the Minister satisfied that all children in Liverpool who need school meals are receiving them? Is he further satisfied that the price of meals is not being taken out of the reach of the pockets of some of the larger families in Liverpool? Does the Minister agree that it is desirable that all schoolchildren should receive midday meals?

Dr. Boyson: Local authorities have to give free meals to children whose parents are on supplementary benefit or who receive family income supplement. They can go further if they wish. Liverpool goes further, so I presume that it is covering all children in Liverpool who require free meals.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that identification of children who receive free meals has always been undesirable? The next time that the Minister meets the unions, will he make it clear that identification of children who receive free meals is very much against the public interest?

Dr. Boyson: I take the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Ever since I was first involved in teaching 30 years ago the problem of how not to identify children receiving free meals has been discussed by teaching unions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools should do everything possible to stop direct identification.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently I had a school dinner in St. Saviour's school, Toxteth, as did most of the children? Is he further aware that it was an excellent dinner that fitted the children to play an energetic game of soccer afterwards? Will my hon. Friend recommend school meals to all other children?

Dr. Boyson: I thought that my hon. Friend was about to recommend to the House the school meals in Liverpool. It is a long way to go for lunch every day. I have noticed an improvement in the health of my hon. Friend, so the credit for that must be given to the Liverpool school.

Biotechnology (Research)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public resources are currently being devoted to research in biotechnology through the appropriate research councils and universities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): I refer the hon. Member to the written answer that I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) on 13 May. In addition, support by the research councils for fundamental research directly related to biotechnology is expected to amount to some £7 million in 1982–83. At least a further £10 million is expected to be spent in the same period on underpinning basic research in this area.

Mr. Hooley: What is the point of slashing millions of pounds from grants to universities and research councils and then pretending that important areas of technology can be effectively financed by dishing out a piddling £100,000 here and there over a period of three years?

Mr. Shelton: I certainly would not refer to £800,000 as piddling. It is important and very much welcomed by the institutions receiving it.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a pity that the development of monoclonal anti-bodies, pioneered by the Argentine born Cesar Millstein at MRC, Cambridge, should be further developed in Japan and Germany, because of the inadequacy of our patent laws? Will the Minister consider a subject that I raised yesterday in the debate on advanced technology, namely, the whole question of the sense of having patent laws when trying to patent living organisms?

Mr. Shelton: That is another question. It is a good one and we shall certainly look at it.

Special Schools

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has considered clarifying the terms of the Education Act 1981, so as to establish beyond doubt that special schools for the handicapped do not need to change their names so as to remove any specific reference to the different disabilities such as the blind and partially sighted, the deaf or the mentally handicapped.

Dr. Boyson: There is nothing in the provisions of the Education Act 1981 to require a school to change its name; nor, so long as the name reflects the function of the school, would it be helpful for that to happen. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make this perfectly clear.

Mr. Hannam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up the misapprehension that exists in the minds of many local education officers. Does my hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the Bill he promised that a conference of organisations concerned with the handicapped would be organised to monitor the progress and integration of the Act? When will that conference be held?

Dr. Boyson: I well remember that promise being given to my hon. Friend during the proceedings. We are moving towards the arrangement of that conference and I hope to make an announcement soon on the date of the conference and who we shall be inviting to it.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that some specialist schools are anxious not only about their names but about their existence? Will he confirm that giving disabled children an opportunity of integration into normal schools does not entail the demolition of special schools?

Dr. Boyson: The intention of the 1981 Act was that, wherever possible, children should be integrated into the normal school system. However, some children are handicapped to such an extent that it is necessary for them to go to special schools. I have no doubt that specialised schools have a long future in this country.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister satisfied that all local education authorities are carrying out their statutory duties towards handicapped children? I notice that the Secretary of State has been visiting Wiltshire. Is the Minister satisfied that the rural counties are doing all that they can to carry out their duties under the 1981 Act and previous Acts?

Dr. Boyson: We have issued guidance on the enforcement of the 1981 Act. Not all of it is in practice. We rely upon advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate on what is happening round the country. I am sure that local education authorities are carrying out their statutory duties as far as possible, but I am also sure that the counties will be aware of the questions that have been asked today and of the duties that the Government feel local authorities should carry out to the best of their ability.

Secondary Education

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the standard of secondary school education.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government's aim is to raise standards, within the resources available, for pupils of all abilities and aptitudes.

Mr. Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among industrialists about the standard and type of education offered in our secondary schools? Has my right hon. Friend any suggestions to make for a revision of the curriculum and the introduction of pupil profiles?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am aware of the anxiety in many quarters about the quality of some of the output of some of the schools. Something special should be done about making the curriculum more relevant for the 40 per cent. in our schools who are least academic. However, hon. Members ought to take into account the point that the key factors in education are motivation on the children's part and effectiveness of teachers. Those two factors are hard to reach by Government.

Mr. Flannery: Has the Secretary of State read the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate? On page 12 of that report there is a horrifying list of deficiencies in secondary education, entirely due to lack of cash and inability to buy the things that are necessary to educate our children. In paragraph 12, under sections (a)and (b), there is a terrible

list, which is an utter disgrace to this country and is the result of money going to private education and not to State education.

Sir Keith Joseph: Without seeking to mitigate the comments in the report, I think that it would have been more honourable if the hon. Gentleman had pressed his Government to take the initiative to publish that report, as my predecessor and I have done.

Sir William van Straubenzee: In judging standards, is it wise for some people to identify particular types of school as if only they were responsible for falling standards? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Conservative areas and Conservative parents take great pride in their comprehensive schools and feel that what matters is not the type of organisation but the quality of the headmaster, the organisation and the motivation of the children?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with what my hon. Friend has so wisely said. The performance of schools varies very much, from the excellent to the worrying.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that many teachers believe that motivation in our schools is disappearing because of the prospect of unemployment or the total collapse of the higher education system, resulting in a lack of places for students? That is at the heart of the Government's policies and the problems in secondary education.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is grotesquely exaggerating any elements of truth that there might be in his case. It is true that rising unemployment presents a worrying climate for many schools. Of course that is true, but it is also true that both pupil-teacher ratios and real spending per child in our schools are at record levels.

Teacher Training

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is considering taking any steps to shorten the courses for teacher training; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Shelton: We have no plans for a general shortening of teacher training. However, for some time the Department has encouraged training institutions to develop shortened BEd courses for mature holders of specialist qualifications in priority subjects. A number of such courses have been approved.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree with the general view of the advisory committee on the supply and education of teachers that shortened courses will be necessary to avoid shortages in key areas? Will the Government bear in mind the heavy demands that the new training initiative is bound to put on the education service?

Mr. Shelton: My hon. Friend is right. However, as he will know, we have only recently received the advice of the advisory committee on the supply and education of teachers and we are considering it. Within that advice, reference is made to a continuing shortage of craft, design and technology teachers. There is a recommendation that the one-year certificate courses should continue after 1983–84. We are considering that advice.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Inspectorate is concerned about the deficiencies that are


appearing in in-service training as a consequence of widespread cuts throughout the education system? Is he aware that that is one of the factors that is contributing, as Her Majesty's Inspectorate said,
to a serious threat to the maintenance of standards and desirable improvements in secondary schools."?
Will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it was not the reluctance of the Labour Government that led to the failure to produce Her Majesty's Inspectorate report, but the fact that the chief inspector was not sufficiently worried until last year—[Interruption.]—on the basis of her evidence to the Select Committee—by the gravity of the effect of the cuts in the education service since the Tory Government came to power?

Mr. Shelton: It seems that my right hon. Friend's remarks have got under the hon. Gentleman's skin. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tells my right hon. Friend that himself, not via me. Of course in-service training is of great importance, but the local education authorities must make the decision.

Expenditure

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in England in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79.

Sir Keith Joseph: Net institutional recurrent expenditure per secondary pupil in England in 1980–81 was £771; the corresponding figure three years earlier, for 1978–79, at constant prices, was £10 lower, £761.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a connection between the amount of money spent on education and standards, on the basis of those figures there is no reason why standards in secondary schools should have fallen since the Government came to power and there are reasons why they might have risen?

Sir Keith Joseph: There is a connection between resources and standards. However, on the other hand, there are many examples where resources are spent beyond the target or GRE, yet standards have not noticeably improved. I repeat that, while there is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says, effectiveness of teaching and motivation of pupils are the key elements.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the Secretary of State accept that the low level of student grants is relevant to the fact that a small proportion of children from working-class families have gone to university under successive Governments? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he intends to do about that problem?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there has been a fall, which we all deplore, in the number of children from relatively poor households going to university under successive Governments. Nevertheless, I cannot accept that it is right, when most people are being financially squeezed, to squeeze them further to provide an increase in grants for students at university.

Schools Merger (Merseyside)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will refuse to give his consent to the merger of Old Hall high school and Ormonde high school, Merseyside.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend will consider these proposals carefully in accordance with his statutory responsibilities and in the light of all relevant factors, including the views of the objectors.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Minister accept that the views of the objectors have been articulate and that those of my constituents who have children at Old Hall high school are satisfied with the education that it provides and do not want it to close or to be merged with any neighbouring school, however admirable it may be? Will the Minister give an assurance that parental choice will remain effective?

Dr. Boyson: We should always welcome a sinner who repents and believes in parental choice. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is now approaching reason, he will no doubt listen most carefully. We cannot comment on the matter. In a quasi-judicial capacity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ultimately reach a decision. The proposals were published only on 2 April and the Department will not receive them until July. I have already received one deputation led by a Member of Parliament and I assure the hon. Gentleman—after that question, I almost called him my hon. Friend—that we shall consider carefully all the objections and whether parental choice would be enhanced or reduced.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend look with particular sympathy on the request made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? Will he also look very critically at any proposal to amalgamate or abolish schools, particularly if it involves creating very large schools?

Dr. Boyson: I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings and I give him the assurance that he seeks. In 1986 there will be 3 million fewer children in school than 10 years earlier. Therefore, we must consider the size of schools and whether they all need to exist. At the same time, we shall ensure that we do not back amalgamation if it is unnecessary.

Youth Training (Educational Places)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many additional places will be required in local authority funded educational institutions to meet the needs of the Manpower Services Commission youth training proposals announced on Tuesday 3 May.

Mr. William Shelton: No detailed estimates were made by the youth task group of the demands of its proposed scheme on maintained educational institutions. The Government expect that they would be commensurate with those under the proposals in Cmnd. 8455.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the current guidelines on rates per student hour payable to colleges of further education be applicable under the new training proposals?


What assurances can the Minister give to further education colleges that they will not be required to provide such additional education on the cheap, at their expense, when at least 70,000 people are involved in the new arrangement?

Mr. Shelton: I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. However, the recommendations of the youth task group have not been officially approved by the Government. Consultations are in process, but there is no plan at present to change the guidelines.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not a crowning absurdity that the Government are still contracting the public sector of higher and further education although these institutions could play their part in the training scheme initiative and, as I understand it, without any allocation of funds or obligation on the part of the Department of Education and Science to give a commitment in that direction?

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The number of those staying on in colleges of further education for full-time education is increasing. Next year, we expect a 25 per cent. increase. Indeed, we have provided the funds for that increase. We have provided about £80 million extra for the 16 to 19 year-old age group, and that is not at all bad.

School Curriculum (Sex Discrimination)

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to eliminate sex discrimination in the school curriculum.

Dr. Boyson: My Department issued a circular when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, and since then we have raised the issue in a number of different publications. Our guidance document entitled "The School Curriculum", published last year, says
It is essential to ensure that equal curricular opportunity is genuinely available to both boys and girls".

Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be seen as complacent, given the mounting evidence that girls are under-performing in the sciences and in technology? Something needs to be done positively to encourage local education authorities to take women's rights seriously.

Dr. Boyson: The Government are concerned that some girls in certain schools are under-performing. In maths and science, it is interesting to note that girls often perform better—as boys do—in single-sex schools, or in separate classes within one school.

Numeracy and Literacy

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to provide additional resources to counter the threat to the maintenance of numeracy and literacy identified in paragraph 65 of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report dated March 1982.

Sir Keith Joseph: I consider that the level of cash provision for school education included in the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83 was sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of education in that sector.

Mr. Dobson: If the Secretary of State proposes to take no notice whatever of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of

Schools' concern about the threat to standards in education, why does he not declare its members redundant, because they are obviously wasting their time ? In addition, as the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman crawled round the country before the last general election talking about constantly improving education standards, why do they not resign?

Sir Keith Joseph: There are serious problems of adjustment to falling school rolls. However, the pupil-teacher ratio and real spending per child at school are both at record levels.

Mr. Christopher Price: If the Secretary of State is concerned about standards in schools, why did he reject all the Select Committee's proposals to keep up those standards? The proposals were made on an all-party basis. What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have for maintaining standards in our schools?

Sir Keith Joseph: I look forward to discussing those crucial questions tomorrow with the Select Committee. think that the problems will not be solved in quite the way that the Select Committee suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Chapman: During the day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that ridding the Falkland Islands of all Argentine troops is not only the main objective of her Government—backed up by the overwhelming support of the British people—but is seen by millions beyond our shores as an objective that is fundamental to the prospects for international law and order and essential to the security and independence of all small sovereign States—the very point recently made by no less a person that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Our objective in the South Atlantic is not only to ensure that the Argentine troops withdraw from the Falklands but to uphold international law and to see that territorial boundaries are not, and cannot be, changed by force.

Mr. Foot: Does the Prime Minister agree that matters cannot be left quite where they were at the end of last Thursday's debate and that several important questions should be clarified in debate in the House? I refer, for example, to the questions put by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the nature of the Peruvian terms and some of the possibilities that were put forward. There are also questions about how far the Argentine Government may have moved towards accepting at any rate two of the requirements that the Government have laid down. Will the right hon. Lady make it quite clear that we shall be able to discuss any response from the Argentine


Government in the House as well as any comment that the Secretary-General of the United Nations may make on the situation?

The Prime Minister: This will be a critical week for deciding whether a peaceful settlement is attainable. Our ambassador to the United Nations returned, saw Senor Perez de Cuellar and put some proposals to him, to be handed over to the Argentines. I understand that we can expect a reply very shortly—within a matter of a day or so. Therefore, it is a critical week and the Government think that it would be timely to hold a debate later this week. I understand that the matter will be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for her response. It is right that the House should have such a debate, in which—I assume—the House will able to judge the propositions for a peaceful settlement before any major escalation of the situation.

The Prime Minister: No military action can be held up in any way. To do so would be to give notice to the dictator, who is our enemy.

Mr. Foot: Surely the right hon. Lady has a responsibility to give notice to the dictator that the House has the right to judge such matters before there is any escalation of the situation.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is constitutionally and practically wrong, and wrong when it comes to regarding the interests of our people in the task force and in the Falklands.

Mr. Peyton: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the absence of any further major developments there will be little point in having a further debate in the House, save, perhaps, to give the Leader of the Opposition a further opportunity to slide away from resolution into a morass of vacillation?

Mr. Dalyell: Cheap.

The Prime Minister: I offered a debate through the usual channels because I believe that this will be a critical week that will decide whether or not a peaceful settlement is attainable. We cannot go on prevaricating. The Argentines are trying to spin out the negotiations. So far, no military option has been closed or held up, and it will not be. However, because I think that this is a critical week it is right to offer a debate.

Mr. Litherland: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a report in The Observer, which said that the Argentine Government owes Williams and Glynn's Bank £6 million, and added that if that is not forthcoming it will have to be met by the taxpayers of this country? In other words, we should supply money for destroyers to sink our ships. Does the Prime Minister think that it is about time that she put pressure on the banks and the financial institutions to play their part, or is it far more convenient for them for there to be a loss of life rather than a loss of profit?

The Prime Minister: I cannot associate myself in any way with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have frozen Argentine assets in the United Kingdom. The bankers are playing their part, just as everyone else in the country is. I can only condemn what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many normal, decent people in this country who are not over-zealous jingoists, but who view the antics of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in participating in a march in which there was a banner calling for victory for Argentina, as being, if nothing else, in doubtful taste? Bearing in mind that both he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) were members of a Government who sold ships and planes to the Argentine—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said before that the Prime Minister can be questioned only about those matters for which she is responsible.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is political opportunism of the worst order?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that Governments from both sides of the House have sold weapons and ships to Argentina. He is also correct in saying that the two right hon. Members he has mentioned were members of Labour Governments. I also agree that the attitude that those right hon. Members are taking is out of step with the country, their constituents and even their party.

Mr. Craigen: As those of us in this country know what a determined lady the Prime Minister can be, has she considered at any time the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with the Argentine leader—[Interruption.]—to maximise the opportunities for this last attempt at peace?

The Prime Minister: I am a very merciful person. The answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have been life-long supporters of the idea of a European Community have been deeply disturbed by some of the actions of the Council of Ministers over the past 48 hours? Will she make it clear to our partners that co-operation within the rule of law cannot be selective, and that these actions can only give comfort to our enemies and endanger the Community as a whole?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is referring to the voting that is taking place over the CAP farm prices, in which it looks as if the prices will be implemented by a majority vote. If that is so, it is without precendent. It raises serious issues and we shall be considering what to do under the new circumstances. I do not think that it would be wise to go any further than that at the moment. It may still be possible to pull it back.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister therefore rejecting the advice of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which has supported such a move?

The Prime Minister: They are as free as I am to express their views. [Interruption.] I did not agree with their views on the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. Mates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in circumstances such as these, the hardest thing that people can do is to wait, and contain themselves in patience, particularly when they are not, and cannot be, in


possession of all the facts? However, will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us, both inside and outside the House, will keep patience and faith, confident in the knowledge that at the right time my right hon. Friend and her closest advisers will do the right thing?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's advice is wise. I am grateful to him for it.

Mr. Maxton: Now that the Prime Minister is away from the dangerously jingoistic atmosphere of the Scottish Tory Party conference, will she reconsider the attitude that she expressed, that war is more thrilling and more exciting than the welfare of her people?

The Prime Minister: I have never expressed such an attitude.

Mr. Maxton: The Right hon. Lady did.

The Prime Minister: I have never expressed such an attitude. However, I believe firmly that we have a duty to defend our people from the invader.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister: Our representative at the United Nations has had a further meeting with Senor Perez de Cuellar. The negotiations are continuing and we are doing all that we can to reach a peaceful settlement, although there are principles on which we cannot compromise. There remain substantial difficulties. I believe that we shall know within the next day or two whether an agreement is attainable. We cannot have endless Argentine prevarication. We have been negotiating in good faith for six weeks and there has still been no sign of Argentine willingness to implement the Security Council's mandatory resolution.
Our determination to ensure that all Argentine forces are withdrawn from the islands remains absolute. We have throughout made it clear that we shall take whatever steps are necessary to bring this about. We are meanwhile increasing the military pressures on the Argentine Government.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed statement. Does she agree that the Government have now done all that they can to achieve a peaceful settlement? Before the awful prospect that full-scale hostilities will have to begin, can we reconsider those specific items of Argentine intransigence that have made

them resist, adamantly and stubornly, the demands of the Secretary-General, to which the British Government have already acceded?

The Prime Minister: We have done everything that vv e can to try to secure a peaceful settlement. The Argentines have shown their intransigence by flouting every part of the United Nations mandatory resolution. Not only did they flout the resolution but they have gone in the contrary direction by piling extra men and equipment to the islands.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that the speech that she made in Perth last Friday convinced many people that she was more intent on a military solution than a peaceful settlement? that would be acceptable to the vast majority of the Commons, but: not to the Right wing of the Tory Party. Is it the case that: the Argentine Government are prepared to withdraw their troops from the Falklands without requiring Britain to concede the principle of sovereignty first?

The Prime Minister: We were negotiating in February—with the islanders—in New York, long before the invasion. It was the Argentines who broke off those negotiations. We were negotiating over the South Georgia incident. It was—

Mr. Cryer: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: I shall answer the question in my own way and in my own time.
It was the Argentine Foreign Secretary, Senor Costa Mendex, who broke off a diplomatic solution to the South Georgia incident the day before invasion. For six weeks we have been trying to reach a negotiated settlement. If we are not able to do so, most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and most hon. Gentlemen, would not flinch from a settlement by force.

Mr. Waller: If, unfortunately, it became unavoidable that the use of force had to be contemplated in the defence of British interests, would it not be highly irresponsible for any actions to be delayed, not for operational reasons and in defence of Service men's lives, but simply to consult Members of the House, however eminent they might be?

The Prime Minister: I believe that any military action or option cannot and must not be delayed by people who are extending negotiations. To say that we have to consult people in the House, apart form being constitutionally wrong, would give notice to the invader of when we intended to take action. That would be stupid as well as totally unjust to those whom we expect to fight for us.

Private Business (Papers)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I hope it is for your convenience, Mr. Speaker, that I should raise a point of order about private business after Prayers now rather than delaying Question Time.
A practice has grown up which is grossly inconvenient to hon. Members. Business which is down for consideration this day is not accompanied by the necessary papers being available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. They are instead invited to go the Private Bill Office in the hope that there will be someone there who will be able to show them that which, in my view, should be readily available in the Vote Office, as is the case with all other papers which are necessary for the conscientious conduct of the House's business.
Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it would be in the interests of the House for instructions to be given that all amendments to Private Bills should be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office on the day on which they are on the Order Paper for discussion. I can see reasons why this might not be done in the case of personal Bills because it might involve greatly added expense to impecunious parties. Therefore, I would not insist on that in the case of personal Bills. But it is a bad practice when Members cannot draw from the Vote Office the papers that they need conscientiously to discharge their duties as set out on the Order Paper, and it turns the House into a rubber stamp.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He has raised a serious point. I have started to look into the question, but I would prefer not to give a ruling today. I shall give a ruling in the near future.

Divisions (Tellers)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the votes in the House last week on the clauses on hanging in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and I were Tellers for the Noes. On the following day and the day after various newspapers, in particular The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, published Division lists and analysed the voting Member by Member and party by party. They did not, however, include the Tellers in the analysis.
I appreciate that what the newspapers publish is no concern of yours, Mr. Speaker, and that is not my point of order. However, you will concede that, if one has taken a stand on an issue to the extent of being a Teller because one is so committed to that issue, it is embarrassing to be thought by one's constituents and others to have been so tardy that one was not interested in being in the House on the relevant evening. It ought not to be a disadvantage, as it manifestly was last week to be a Teller in a Division.
There are two aspects to my point of order. First, it has long been the practice of the House that when the figures in a Division are given the two Tellers on each side are not included in the voting figures. I wonder whether that decision might be reviewed. Secondly, and more importantly I understand that officials of the House provide for the press photocopies or copies of the Division list taken by the Clerks in the Division Lobbies which contain the ticks against the names of the Members who pass through the Lobbies. Those lists which are provided by officials of the House—I believe, Mr. Speaker under your instructions or under your authority—do not include the names of the Tellers, so I can well understand that the more unsophisticated newspapers are not aware of the practice of the House and the part played by Tellers.
Will you examine this matter, Mr. Speaker, to see whether any change in our arrangements should be made?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would seek to raise his point of order.
It has been well accepted over centuries that the Tellers are not included in the Division totals. In fact, the Tellers have not been included in the totals since the first recorded Divisions. It is for the House, if it wishes, to change that system; it is not for me. Teller's names are announced in the House by the occupant of the Chair during the course of each Division. They are announced in a loud, clear voice. Therefore, there should be no difficulty, even for the unsophisticated, in becoming aware of them in any Division.

Ministerial Statements (Reporting)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is common ground that senior Ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, should be accurately reported when they make statements in the House on sensitive subjects. In answer to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), the Prime Minister denied certain remarks, which I will not repeat, that she had been reported as having made in Scotland. Those of us who own car radios certainly understood her to say that she—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order on which the hon. Gentleman seeks my ruling?

Mr. Dalyell: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the Leader of the House, through you, if the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot use me as a messenger boy to the Leader of the House. That is just not done. If the hon. Gentleman wants to approach him, he knows what to do.

Mr. Dalyell: By some act of combustion or spontaneity, could not the Leader of the House, who knows very well what I am getting at, again say that he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finished Prime Minister's Question Time.

Later—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to pursue not the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) but the more general principle of what happens when a Member is misquoted in the press or on the radio. [Interruption.] This is a serious matter even for the girl guides on the Conservative Benches. What recourse does the Prime Minister have if she is misquoted in the Scottish context and what recourse do ordinary Back-Bench Members have when they are repeatedly misquoted, or their quotes are made out of context, in the media?
I have only to put my own recent experience. You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, on a previous occasion when I raised a point of order, following a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, to answer my detailed point in some detail. It was a reasonable extension of the matter that we were then discussing. When it came to be dealt with by the new breed of political commentators, some of the termites who sit upstairs in the Press Gallery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect to the hon. Member, I cannot take responsibility for the media. If hon. Members are misquoted, they must do their best to put the matter right, as the Prime Minister did this afternoon.

Mr. Faulds: I am not asking what you would do about this matter, Mr. Speaker. I am asking about the protection that hon. Members have if they are misquoted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has some very important business before it today. I cannot help the hen. Gentleman. If he has been misquoted, he is experienced enough to know with whom he must deal.

Mr. Faulds: The matter to which I am referring reflects on you, Mr. Speaker, and as usual I am leaping to your defence. As I was trying to say when some of my colleagues inadvertently—[HON. MEMBERS: "…laughed."]—I raised with you a point of order which you answered in some detail. When it came to be discussed—[Interruption.] This is the freedom of speech that the lads on the Tory Benches love. When it was discussed in the columns of The Times by this commentator, he reported—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman submit a point of order to me? If not, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Faulds: If I may finish the story, Mr. Speaker you will see the purpose of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us move on to the Ten-Minute Bill.

Farm Price Review

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, if the Government approach you, you will be prepared to provide time tonight for a statement about the farm price review? You will have heard during Prime Minister's Question Time about an unprecedented move to ignore the Government's veto and to allow the farm price review to be implemented. The Government must have the opportunity to make a statement about this urgent matter as soon as possible. I should like your confirmation, Mr. Speaker, that, if approached, you would be prepared to give that time, particularly as many Members, especially on the Opposition Benches, are keen to hear the Government's view and to see whether they will refuse to implement the farm price increases.

Mr. Speaker: I shall wait until I am approached before I make a decision.

European Communities Act 1972

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As a relative newcomer to the House, I should be supremely grateful for your advice. It concerns Standing Order No. 3, which provides that proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament
may be proceeded with at any hour though opposed.
In view of the fact that yesterday we were kicked in the teeth by our Community partners over sanctions and that today we have been mugged over farm prices—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether it is possible, now that the Luxembourg compromise under which we signed the European Communities Act 1972 has been dispensed with, to have an urgent and immediate debate about a subject with which the House is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall move on now to the Ten-Minute Bill.

Junior Doctors (Working Hours)

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the number of hours worked by junior doctors in both the public and private sector; and for connected purposes.
I base this Bill on much evidence. The Fourth Report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee brought forward the fact that, whether on duty or on call, junior hospital doctors work an average of 90 hours a week, and in many cases longer than that. The report said that this represents an exploitation of junior hospital doctors, and it made the important point that if they work those hours they cannot provide the best service for the patients.
In addition, the Secretary of State for Social Services, in a written answer to a Parliamentary question in February 1981, said that in most specialties over one-quarter of junior hospital doctors are working over 104 hours per week, and in certain specialties, such as surgical, there are instances where 50 per cent. of them are working over 104 hours per week. Long hours must have a detrimental effect because decisions are impaired by lack of sleep, overwork and stress. That must affect patient care. The effects are difficult to quantify, but during the past 20 years there has been an increase in sophistication in medicine, which must add to the stress on junior doctors and doctors generally.
Many doctors can relate incidents where, through overtiredness, they have given wrong advice or wrong treatment which they have often been able to correct. However, in some instances they have not been able to do so.
The Health Service Commissioner's Report covering April to September 1980 records that a senior registrar was called, but unfortunately was asleep, and failed to respond. As a result a baby was still-born. The report goes on to say that:
The failure of the senior registrar to go promptly to the patient.… had a tragic result.
It has not been denied that the still-birth was avoidable. The report goes on to say that:
Overpowering fatigue is a familiar torment to many who work in the caring services.
Junior doctors should not have to put up with such conditions. In other instances of working long hours, they have been involved in car accidents. In 1976 a doctor fell asleep at the wheel of his car and was killed. In 1979, a doctor similarly fell asleep while driving in a busy shpping precinct where many shoppers were present. It was most fortunate that there was no loss of life, but there could well have been. In 1980—for obvious reasons I do not wish to name the doctor—a senior house officer in Manchester committed suicide. His parents said that the fear of making mistakes while he was overtired contributed to this sad event.
It is impossible to say how many more doctors have died or been injured or how many patients have suffered or lost their lives because of the problem of working long hours. It has been kept to a minimum by the dedication of the medical profession, but we should not expect doctors to labour under such conditions for such long hours, and it is ludicrous that we should expect them to do so because of an outmoded code of ethics. Hon. Members should contrast the hours that doctors work with the hours worked by a heavy goods vehicle driver or, as my hon. Friend the


Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) knows, with the hours worked by a train driver, an airline pilot or a helicopter pilot, where we put the safety of the passengers first. It is much more important, given the relationship between a doctor and his patient, to put the needs of the patient first and do everything possible to safeguard the doctor's health.
There will be a cost. I want to reduce from 90 to 60 the hours that a doctor may be on call and work. That would mean increasing the number of junior hospital doctors by one-third. We must put that increase in context. To do what I suggest would cost £70 million, but we must set that against the health bill for community and hospital services generally of over £5,000 million. It is an increase of 1·3 per cent. However, I do not believe that it needs to be as much as that. Junior hospital doctors' time could be reorganised. There is an overlap in the specialties. In many instances two teams do the work of one. General medicine and geriatrics is one example. We could consider the reorganisation of surgery. Instead of bringing the patient into hospital the day before to determine whether he is fit to have the operation, he could be brought to the outpatient department some days before he is to enter hospital to see whether he or she is fit to undergo the operation.
A quarter to a third of junior hospital doctors' time is spent waiting for consultants, doing the rounds or being on call. Their time could be far better organised. Better administration would bring about greater efficiency. However, the sum of £70 million would be a small price to pay for the health of junior doctors and for the safety of their patients. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will command the unanimous support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Reg Race, Mr. Michael Meacher, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Roland Moyle and Mr. David Ennals.

JUNIOR DOCTORS (WORKING HOURS)

Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the number of hours worked by junior doctors in both the public and private sector; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

EMPLOYMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [6 May] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—

(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be amendments to Clauses, amendments to Schedules, New Clauses and New Schedules;
(2) the allotted days which under the Order [20th April] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Alloted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Amendments to Clauses 1 to 10
6.00 p.m.



Amendments to Clauses 11 and 12
7.30 p.m.



Remaining Amendments
11.00 p.m.



New Clauses and New Schedules
Midnight


Second day
Third Reading
7.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

Clause 4

NEW SPECIAL AWARD

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 19, leave out from '4' to end of line 24 and insert—
'(1) For section 71(2)(b)(i) of the 1978 Act there shall be substituted
(i) where the dismissal is of a description referred to in subsection (3) consisting of—

(a) a basic award (calculated in accordance with section 73),
(b) a compensatory award (calculated in accordance with Section 74), and
(c) a special award (calculated in accordance with Section 75A)".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 35, leave out from '(c)' to 'a' in line 36.

Mr. Varley: May I briefly explain, Mr. Speaker, why we have not sought to move the first four amendments which you kindly selected? First, we have limited time for debate and we need to use all the time that we have on what we regard as priorities for discussion. Secondly, at this late stage in our proceedings we do not believe that we have much, chance of changing the mind of the Secretary of State for Employment on the first three clauses.
It would have been to the advantage of the House if we had had more evidence from the Government to support those early clauses. On the contrary, all the evidence now points the other way. The Secretary of State and his two ministerial colleagues on the Front Bench will remember that we asked him again and again in Committee to provide us with the Gennard report. For those hon. Members who do not know what the Gennard report is, it was a study on the closed shop which was commissioned by the Labour Government at a cost of £60,000. Professor John Gennard of Strathclyde university had the task of compiling it. We were told that we could not have that report in Committee because it was in an unpublishable form. However, according to The Observer, it has received a copy. In an article, Mr. Robert Taylor, labour editor, says:
A copy of the still confidential study has reached The Observer.The report is a devastating rebuke to the assumptions behind the closed shop parts of the Tebbit Bill.
He said:
Indeed, Gennard found 'management did not really consider the closed shop to be high on their list of industrial relations priorities'.
Again, quoting the Gennard report, he said:
Apparently two-in-three closed shops make provision that 'existing non-unionists should carry on in their jobs'.
Mr. Taylor said:
even MPs on the committee examining the Employment Bill were refused access to the report, the most comprehensive ever on the closed shop … Tebbit and other anti-closed shop idealogues may question the Gennard report but it would surely have been useful to have it available for the Employment Bill".

It certainly would have been useful to have had it available.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I should like to make the position of Professor Gennard clear. First, the implication in The Observer article that the Government are suppressing the research is nonsense. I deny it categorically, as the professor has already done—[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish", but he should ask the professor. He is refuting what the professor says and casting a doubt upon his honour. When the work is finished it will be published and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) will see, as will Mr. Taylor of The Observer, that he has got it wrong.

Mr. Varley: When we were told in Committee that the report was in an unpublishable form—I think that was the phrase used—we accepted that. Nevertheless, we asked on several occasions if we could see it and we were told "No". The Secretary of State is right to say that the professor confirmed that the report had to be studied and analysed. However, Mr. Taylor claims to have a copy. There is no denying that it would have been of value to hon. Members in Committee and to the House if the Secretary of State and Professor Gennard had got together to put the report in publishable form so that we could examine its contents.

Mr. Tebbit: If Mr. Taylor has a copy, it has been illicitly obtained. It has been made clear that the professor does not consider the work to be finished. It is also clear that it was not the professor who handed a copy of the report to Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Varley: There was no urgency for the Bill. It is being rushed through. We are anxious to learn the facts that Professor Gennard has come up with. If Professor Gennard says that it is not in publishable form, we accept that. The only point that we are making is that it would be useful to have it available as quickly as possible. When we have completed our work on the Bill it will be considered in another place and perhaps the Secretary of State will consider whether it can be published in time for those in another place to consider its contents.

4 pm

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham): No doubt my right hon. Friend will have observed, as I did, that the Secretary of State is not denying that the extracts from the report that appeared in The Observer are accurate. If the right hon. Gentleman is really saying "They are not true and they are not proper quotations", let him say so. The way in which he can show that the extracts are untrue is to publish the report. However, it seems that he accepts that the quotations are accurate.

Mr. Varley: I do no want to labour the point. However, I think that my hon. Friend is on to something. According to Mr. Taylor's account, the study has been in the hands of the Department of Employment since December. It may be that some of the work has not yet been finished. We have requested on more than one occasion that we be supplied with an interim report or statement.

Mr. Tebbit: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has hold of the wrong end of the stick. I have not seen the report, and nor has anyone else, because the report has not yet been completed and, therefore, it cannot be seen. It


appears that Mr. Taylor may have illicitly and improperly obtained a partially completed version. Indeed, the professor himself says that the report is not ready for publication. Therefore, I do not know whether the extracts are accurate.

Mr. Varley: I accept the Secretary of State's assertion that he has not seen the report. If he had asked to see the report, even though it has not yet been completed or is in unpublishable form, his officials would have delivered it to him. I do not know whether the report will embarrass the Government. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's officials may have told him "We have the Gennard report and the terrible Labour Members who are considering the Bill in Committee are saying 'Why cannot we have it?". The right hon. Gentleman may well have said "Do not bother me with that. I have other things on my mind. I should rather finish the consideration of the Bill in Committee before studying the report with a view to seeing whether it can be published." I am merely saying that it would have been of some advantage to those of us who considered the Bill in Committee if we had had an interim report from Professor Gennard.
As I have said, we accept that we cannot change the Government's mind on clauses 1, 2 and 3. The amendments are designed to prick Ministers' consciences. Under the terms of the Bill those who are deemed to be unfairly dismissed because they refuse to belong to a trade union membership agreement have the right to large compensation. In some circumstances, compensation could amount to about £30,000 if various additions were made to the special award. I am not concerned that some of Britain's leading organisations that deal with personnel and industrial relations matters are sceptical and critical about the large sums of compensation that are to be paid. However, it is interesting to read again what some of them have had to say. The Institute of Personnel Management, which is one of the leading authorities on industrial relations, said:
The Institute foresees undesirable consequences arising from the introduction of high levels of compensation. Industrial relations cases are rarely clearcut and can offer too much scope for exploitation by the unscrupulous individual who exists in almost every large organisation and who would be attracted by the money.
The Industrial Society said:
There is a danger in 'throwing around' such large sums for unfair dismissal as £15,000 or £20,000 … redundancy claims may in future be dressed up as unfair dismissal or union membership claims or malcontents may be stirred up by the thought of a crock of gold at the end of the tribunal rainbow.
We know that the General Council of British Shipping has had something to say about compensation and seafarers.
In Committee Ministers repeated that they believed "high levels of compensation" to be right and that, as far as they were concerned, there was no going back. I expect that when the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate he will repeat some of his remarks in Committee. This is the Government's special way of trying to make union membership agreements inoperable.
If large sums of compensation are to be justified, let them apply to all cases of unfair dismissal. That is what our amendment seeks to do. Most hon. Members have constituents who have succeeded in winning their unfair dismissal cases and they will be aware that they have received only a small amount of compensation. In most instances unfair dismissal will be unaltered by the Bill. In Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for

Doncaster (Mr. Walker) referred to the most recent case in his constituency involving Mining Supplies Ltd., which took over Laurence Scott & Electromotors. Six employees were sacked after being given notice of three-quarters of an hour. They took their case to an industrial tribunal. They won it and were awarded not £30,000 but between £600 and £1,000 apiece. We know that in general the median award for cases of unfair dismissal—the 1980 figure is the most recent one that is available to me—is £598.
The amendment is concerned with equity and fairness. If the Government judge that those who are dismissed unfairly can be eligible for large sums of compensation in some instances, let these large awards apply to all who are unfairly dismissed for any reason. Such dismissal creates the same hardship in all instances. Neither I nor any of my right hon. or hon. Friends seeks to defend those whose foolish behaviour while at work leads to their dismissal, but we are talking about those who are found by a judicial body to have been dismissed unfairly for whatever cause. The hardships are the same, the same family responsibilities arise, the same promotion prospects are probably placed in jeopardy and the difficulty in finding a new job will be exactly the same. Equity of treatment should be the rule. There is no justification for providing that one unfairly dismissed worker should receive £30,000 while another worker receives only £600.
That is the basis of our case and that is why we have tabled the amendment. We hope that the Government will accept it, even at this late stage.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I was interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) had to say about the views of the Institute of Personnel Management. It must not be overlooked that sometimes those who are involved on the management side forget that not long ago Lord McCarthy said that the closed shop gives the power of coercion. He meant that it gives a union the power to say to an individual worker "Go out on strike or else. Go out on strike or you will not get a job in your trade ever again". The institute sometimes forgets that. I find it difficult to understand how anyone on the management side of business can believe that the closed shop is good for management.
The right hon. Gentleman wishes high levels of compensation to apply in all cases of unfair dismissal. We say "No" because we are dealing with specific abuses and we consider higher levels of compensation to be necessary as a deterrent against unfair dismissals in closed shops and because if a person is unfairly dismissed from a closed shop it may be much more difficult for him to get another job than if he had been unfairly dismissed for other reasons.
It is not quite true to say, as did the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, that to be dismissed unfairly creates the same sort of hardship whatever the reason. Dismissal in the circumstances of a closed shop may make it difficult to get a job again. The Labour Government acknowledged that it was not quite true. They believed that dismissal in certain circumstances required higher compensation rand they provided for enhanced compensation for cases of unfair dismissal for trade union membership or activities.

Mr. Harold Walker: They extended that higher compensation but not on grounds of hardship or of


difficulty in obtaining a job. The Minister does not have a shred of evidence about it being more difficult for someone dismissed in those circumstances to regain employment. The extra compensation was also available for those people who had been unfairly dismissed on racial or sex grounds. Do the Government plan to extend the higher level of compensation to those categories of people?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows the answer and the reason. I do not believe that any Government could have failed to react to the events of the past year or so. They could not have failed to react to what happened at Sandwell and Walsall. There are obvious abuses and an obvious need to deal with them. Unfair closed shop dismissals have continued to occur in defiance of the protection given under the 1980 Act. No responsible Government could have sat by and done nothing. It is clear that further such unfair dismissals will continue unless there is a substantial increase in the amount of compensation available.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister claims that unfair dismissals have continued since the 1980 Act. Will he give any instances of more cases than can be counted on the fingers of one hand?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) knows the quite disgraceful cases that have attracted a great deal of publicity. I know that hon. Gentlemen become irritated when I harp on about Sandwell and Walsall but they must remember the circumstances of those cases. They provide the clearest possible justification of the need for better protection of those who are unfairly dismissed.
In the Walsall case the dinner ladies were part-timers. It was unlikely that they would get much compensation, and so those who had the power on the local council decided to dismiss them unfairly. It was quite clear to those people that they were unlikely to be called to account by the district auditor. If the industrial tribunal to which those ladies might apply did not make an order for reinstatement they were likely to leave the tribunal with only a few hundred pounds. It is no wonder that the council behaved in the irresponsible way in which they did. Thank goodness it has now been called to account. There is no doubt whatsoever of the condemnation by the people of Walsall for what it did.
The same position occurred in Sandwell. If Joanna Harris had gone to an industrial tribunal she would have received only a few hundred pounds. That is the clearest justification for what we are doing. We must spell out quite clearly to employers that they cannot behave with impunity towards their employees in the way that the employers of the dinner ladies and Joanna Harris did.

Mr. George Park: I wonder whether the Minister would consider the position of weak management. I know a case of an employee who was a persistent absentee. The management refused to take any action against him. The shop steward, of all people, remonstrated with the employee about his bad attendance. The individual then tore up his union card in front of the trade union representative. The man was then sacked

because he was not a member of a trade union in a trade union shop. It was the management that should have grasped the nettle and got rid of the unsatisfactory employee, not only because of their rules, but because of the opinion of the work people who were having to shoulder the job that he should have been doing.

Mr. Waddington: There are two important points. First, all the various heads of compensation can be reduced if the person is unfairly dismissed—where there is a closed shop—because of his own conduct. Second, in the case spelled out by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) I should have thought that there must be some doubt as to whether he was dismissed for not being a member of a union. I should have thought that it would have been possible to argue before the tribunal that the true reason for his dismissal was the lamentable conduct that had led to his tearing up his union card. There are two protections for the employer. I do not believe that the circumstances of the case explained by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East are any condemnation of the position which we have taken in the Bill.
I know that dismissals as a result of sex or race discrimination are distasteful, but there is no evidence of recent dismissals carried out in blatant defiance of employees' statutory rights in that regard. There is no parallel in the sex and race areas of politically motivated people trampling on the rights of others. The circumstances that we are dealing with stand entirely on their own. The size of the awards is intended to act as a deterrent and as adequate and generous compensation for people who might find it difficult to get a job again. It is a pattern of increased compensation for particular categories of unfair dismissal that was followed by the Labour Government.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister must not continue invoking the provisions of the 1975 Act in a wholly spurious and misleading way. The different levels of compensation had nothing whatsoever to do with the difficulties of subsequently finding employment. It applied to people who had been dismissed or discriminated against because they were pursuing trade union activities. For the Minister to pretend that he can vicariously transfer whatever argument was used then to these quite different provisions is absurd and manifest nonsense. Has the Minister any evidence to show that for this particular class of employee it is subsequently more difficult to find a job than for anybody else who has been unfairly dismissed, or is it a bold assertion that he makes?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Member for Doncaster knows the answer to that. If a miner tore up his union card, does he seriously suggest that that miner would not have difficulty in getting a job in a pit? He would have no chance of ever getting a job in a pit again. I am not putting that forward as an argument for banning the closed shop in mining, but it is a matter of common sense and a matter or record. The right hon. Gentleman should not press me to state the obvious.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. Will he say whether it was easy for Mr. Derek Robinson, the former convenor at a British Leyland factory, who was dismissed for union activities, subsequently to obtain employment? All hon. Members can produce examples of hard cases. It is no use


the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, because one case in his opinion is more difficult, he will provide levels of compensation that will never be applied in other cases of unfair dismissal. There is the contrast between, on the one hand, the person dismissed for trade union activities, who will probably receive a few hundred pounds, and, on the other, someone who will obtain between £2,000 and £31,000.

Mr. Waddington: I am amazed. "Red Robbo" was not dismissed for trade union activities. He was dismissed for gross misconduct and for attacking his own employers. As he was imperilling all his colleagues' jobs he was rightly drummed out of the firm. Good riddance, I say. To pretend that this is an example of unfair dismissal for trade union activity is nonsense. To obtain compensation for unfair dismissal for a trade union activity, one has to prove that this was the reason for dismissal and that it was the only reason for dismissal. This has no bearing on the case of "Red Robbo".
We are continually told that there is scope for abuse and that we shall be faced with avaricious martyrs and rapacious seafarers. The answer is plain. Not only is there protection in the sense that minimum awards can be reduced as the result of the misconduct of the applicants before the industrial tribunals, but, beyond that, there is no need for any employer to dismiss anyone unfairly. If the employer wishes to protect himself against an action in an industrial tribunal for compensation, his remedy is in his own hands. A person may not wish to be a member of a union. The employer does not have to dismiss him and can put up with the oddball among his work force.
I am sure that there may be the odd person who has it in mind to be an avaricious martyr. I am equally sure that many who set off down that road will be disappointed at the end of the road. They will not be able to satisfy their avarice because the employer will be sensible enough not to dismiss and the trade union in the firm will be sensible enough not to jeopardise its own funds by putting pressure on the employer to dismiss.
In those circumstances, I suggest that there is ample justification for the increased scale of compensation provided in the Bill, not only for those who are unfairly dismissed for failing to join a union but for those who are unfairly dismissed for membership of a trade union and for trade union activities.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I assume that every hon. Member has a chance to take part in debates on Report. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) talk about the need to spread the compensation payments right across the board. That is an excellent idea. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has mentioned the case of Mr. Derek Robinson. Even in the mining industry, which has a much better record on unfair dismissals than other industries, there were many cases during the period when I was working in the pit when people suffered. Before nationalisation, the numbers were in their thousands.
In private industry today, there are countless examples of people who are sacked for even trying to start a trade union. In a factory not far from where I live at Clay Cross, two of my friends were sacked from a firm because they had the audacity to try to start a branch of the General and Municipal Workers Union. This happened only a few

years ago, since I have been an hon. Member. Eventually, after a 17 weeks' strike, they were sent down the road. one of my friends who was a member of Clay Cross council at the time, was sacked by the firm, Ingham, which has since been taken over and which has received all the customary Government grants for this, that and the other, and which has made a few bob on the side. It now has a different name and is involved in central heating.
My friend was refused employment for nearly three years. He eventually managed to get a job at the area workshops at Markham, near Chesterfield, but only after he had tried firm after firm. This was not a period when there were nearly 4 million out of work. I am talking of a time when unemployment rarely rose above 750,000, although, for a short spell early in 1972, it reached more than 1 million. Some jobs were available, but my friend was prevented from working because of his record of trying to start a small union.
It seems to me preposterous that as much as £31,000 can be paid out to those who decide to take on the union. They can get at least £12,000 a throw. If they decide to say that they are not joining a union, they know that. at the end of the road, there is £12,000 waiting for them. There will be plenty of people weighing up the prospect of collecting that kind of money in contrast to those who are kicked out of jobs because they are trade union activists and who can receive as little as £600 or, in many cases, nothing. The amendment will defuse the proposition in the Bill. I support it.
On the issue of those who are victimised, the Minister referred to the case at Sandwell. I do not recall that the lady who was employed by the public health department as Sandwell experienced any difficulty in getting a job. According to all reports, she got a job pretty quickly. There were Tory private entrepreneurs tumbling over themselves to find jobs for people prepared to attack the unions. The Government have some cheek when they talk about looking after people who cannot find a job or w ho have lost a job as a result of not being a union member when they have presided over the doubling of unemployment in a period of less than three years since they have been in power. Their actions have to be compared with what is happening in social security.
The Government are supposed to be looking after the interests of those in work by giving them the chance to receive money if they do not want to join a trade union. It is a kind of bribe. On the other hand, the Government have stopped earnings-related supplement. They have cut right across the whole range of social security benefits. They have published a White Paper—its proposals presumably will become law unless stopped by public opinion—which will result in loss to claimants through social security benefit offsets. Yet they have the cheek to say that they are concerned about people employed in factories and providing services.
4.30 pm
I have a novel suggestion and it is directed primarily at the Opposition side of the House. We have to fight this Bill as hard as we possibly can. I have no doubt that during the passage of the Bill, and when it becomes an Act, there will be incidents arising out of this clause and out of some of the others. We shall have to be seen to be defending our class when they come up against the Minister and others. We have to defend them. We shall have to defend them even as we did in 1972 when the Industrial Relations Act


was pushed through. That Act was defied when it became law. We stopped it, mainly as a result of the struggle that took place outside.
We shall not win here by votes. We know that the Government have the support of the Social Democrats, the Liberals and all the rest of the rag, tag, and bobtails, together with their own supporters. That means a majority of about 100. Parliamentary arithmetic prevents us from winning in this place, but we must make sure that this Act is made unworkable if it receives the Royal Assent. We shall be called upon by our people outside in the trade union movement to line up with them when they are engaged in the struggle. I suggest that one of the ways in which we can assist those of our people who are still working is to say to them that when the general election comes we shall include in our manifesto a commitment that when the Labour Party is returned all funds taken away from trade unions, either arising out of this clause or any of the other clauses—they can be up to £¼ million—will be returned to them. If it is right to make payments retrospectively in those cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred—

Mr. Michael Brotherton: rose—

Mr. Skinner: No, get down. I can hear Louth the mouth! Sit down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East referred earlier to the five cases which would receive benefits retrospectively from this Goverment. If it is right for a Tory Government to make retrospective payments to those whom they feel have been harmed as a result of a previous Act, it is right and proper for a forthcoming Labour Government to declare well before the election that we shall ensure that retrospective payments are made to the trade unions.

Mr. Reg Prentice: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has given us a recital of the class war, and I simply want to put to him that there are two pathetic aspects of the debate on this Bill. One has been the ritual noises made by the TUC bureaucrats. Nobody who has any kind of rank and file contacts at all will take them seriously. I keep as closely in touch as I can with trade unionists in my constituency and elsewhere. I speak as someone who has been a trade unionist since the day I left school. I want to say to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Bolsover, that the special TUC conference at Wembley on this matter was the biggest nonevent of recent months. The trade unionists of this country were not listening. The only thing that is more pathetic—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said that in 1971 and he was wrong. He was proved wrong when he spoke from the Despatch Box.

Mr. Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman says that trade unionists will not want to fight against the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. I remember when he was leading from the Opposition Front Bench way back in 1971. He made the same statements then and also upstairs in parliamentary Labour Party meetings. He used to say

them more vociferously. Whilst it may have appeared that the trade union movement was lying dormant, as soon as those five dockers were hustled into Pentonville as a result of the Industrial Relations Act, there was a massive demonstration and a one-day strike by the whole of the trade union movement. The Tory Government, led by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), went out and found a fellow called the Official Solicitor and sent him down to Pentonville to get the five dockers out, and solved the problem. The Industrial Relations Act was smashed, despite all the right hon. Member said when he spoke from the Dispatch Box before he turned over and joined the Tory ranks.

Mr. Prentice: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will be indulgent and let me reply to what the hon. Member for Bolsover has said. You may rule me out of order. If the hon. Member is going to talk about Pentonville, he had better remember how it finished. Berny Steers was in tears at West Ham Park when the dockers voted to go back to work. That was the end. The Industrial Relations Act was not smashed; it was repealed by this House by proper constitutional process. If the hon. Member is to quote my speeches he should remember that I opposed that Act, and I still do in retrospect, but I also urged from the Dispatch Box, in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in speeches throughout the country, that opposition should be pursued through the law and that any trade unionist proposing to bring discredit on the trade union movement should not do so. But certain people did, like the five dockers in that disgraceful episode.
Leaving that on one side, anyone who makes a comparison between this modest Bill and the Act of 1971 is guilty of gross exaggeration. This is a modest Bill, which makes relatively minor but important and worthwhile changes in the law on the closed shop and related matters.
I am not allowed to call the amendment that we are discussing a wrecking amendment. It is not quite a wrecking amendment but it gets as close to being one as is possible within the rules of order. It attempts to equate the compensation payable to people who lose their job under the circumstances defined in this statute with that paid to people who lose their jobs in other circumstances. In other words, it attempts to remove the sanction concerning those who are dismissed in circumstances where there is a closed shop and that closed shop has not been legitimised by the ballots that will will be provided. The question in front of the House is the basic issue of the closed shop. That is why I think the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was right to start discussing what is or is not in The Observer article, which I would also like to see, although it is unlikely to affect my attitude to the closed shop, which I have opposed all along.
Going back to the time when I occupied a seat on the Labour Benches, I opposed the closed shop in those days and made it clear that I regarded the closed shop as an abomination. I wish this Bill were going further. I wish that we were going to make the closed shop illegal in Britain, as it is in many other Western democracies. In default of that, I support the proposals in these clauses, which would be totally undermined if this amendment were agreed. The purpose of this amendment is either to destroy the clauses or at any rate to diminish their effect.
To me, and to very many millions of people throughout this country, including many millions of trade unionists,


the closed shop is an abomination for two reasons. First, it is an attack on the personal freedom of the individual. I put this statement to hon. Members of the Opposition, and I would like to have their comments on it. It seems to me that a man or woman in employment, first of all, has an absolute right to join a union. That should be backed up by the law, as indeed it is. Secondly, he or she should have a right not to be a trade unionist if he or she so chooses. Thirdly, they should have a right to choose which union to join and, if they think it proper, to resign from their existing union and to join another or, indeed, to try to form another.
We are talking here not merely about unionism versus non-unionism, but about the established big battalions of the TUC as against people who may try to create a new organisation of workers that they think will better represent the workers' interests.

Mr. Skinner: What would happen in the pits?

Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman mean what would I do if I were in the pits?

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman said that people should have the right to join any trade union of their choice. I am saying that it would be extremely difficult in that environment for anyone to opt out of being a member of the NUM, unless he were an official, in which case he would be a member of what is called NACODS. If someone wanted to join a trade union other than the NUM and work underground on the coal face, what does the right hon. Gentleman think would happen?

Mr. Prentice: I shall come to that in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall make my speech in my own way, but I promise that I shall come back to that matter in a moment.
There is another reason against the closed shop, which, in my view, is not discussed sufficiently, and that is that the closed shop is bad for trade unionism. It is unhealthy for a trade union to be a conscript army. If recruits to a trade union are obtained voluntarily, if trade unionists stay in a trade union because they want to stay, and if they have a right to resign from it, the union would be much more rsponsive to the rank and file—in the true sense of those words—than unions are in many places at present.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking to the amendment? He seems to be arguing that the closed shop should be outlawed. Surely that does not come within the scope of the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in order, and if he had not been in order I should have stopped him.

Mr. Prentice: I come back to my original argument. I believe that the closed shop should be outlawed, but in default of that I believe that its frontier should be rolled back. I regard the Bill, and particularly the clause that we are discussing, as instruments to that end. The amendment is designed to reduce the effectiveness of such instruments.

Mr. Brotherton: Perhaps I could assist my right hon. Friend with the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about whether it would be possible for a person working at the coal face to belong to a union other than the NUM. I agree that that may be

difficult, but what is wrong in giving a person who works at the coal face the right to belong to another union should he so desire?

Mr. Prentice: I see no objection to people having a choice of trade union, whether they are miners or anyone else. In my opinion, miners should have the same right as other workers have, but the establishment of the NUM wants to deprive miners of their rights as workers.
I come back to my theme of the quality of trade unionism. The closed shop may be convenient to trade union bureaucrats because they do not have to organise to recruit members, and perhaps they do not need to be overzealous in serving their members because those members cannot resign without putting their employment at risk. Secondly, the closed shop can be convenient to the militant elements in trade unions, because they can confine their struggle simply to getting control of the machine. Once they have got control, they have a conscript army at their disposal. Thirdly, the closed shop may be convenient to some employers who prefer the cosy relationship of dealing with a closed shop to a more fluid situation. However, that does not justify the closed shop. In my opinion, employers and trade union bosses working in collusion do not have a right to take away the individual's right to choose whether to be a trade unionist.

Mr. Don Dixon: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that a person has the right not to be a member of a trade union, does he also accept that trade unionists have the right not to work alongside a person who is not a member of a trade union?

Mr. Prentice: No, I do not accept that. If I am a trade unionist and I work alongside someone who is not a trade unionist, I should respect his right to work, just as he should respect my right to work.
Let us look at the matter in perspective. There are probably two justifications for the way in which the closed shop has emerged in Britain. The first is the historical justification. The history of industrial relations in some of our industries was so bitter, and the issues at stake were so great, that one perfectly understands the attitude of trade unionists in those industries at certain times in the past saying that people either had to be with them or against them. The coal mining industry is one example. If I had been a miner in the 1920s, I should have been very intolerant of a non-trade unionist. The atmosphere that prevailed in those days is comparable with conscription in war time. The miners were involved in a class war that was a day-to-day reality. They therefore felt the need to conscript people into the union army—if I may use that analogy. However, we do not have conscription in peace time. Therefore, I believe that those who argue for the closed shop now are logical if they believe that the class war is a continuing reality, and clearly there are hon. Members like the hon. Member for Bolsover who believe that. However, the majority of people in the country do not believe that. They do not have a class war attitude, and therefore they do not need class war instruments.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I should like to take up what the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I would not argue about the rights of individuals, but in practice the situation would be impossible in the mining industry. How could


another union negotiate terms and conditions at the coalface, which differ from day to day? It would be absolutely impossible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should perhaps revert to the point of order which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). The amendment deals with compensation. This is not a general debate on the closed shop. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come to that.

Mr. Prentice: It was my submission at the beginning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I thought you accepted, that the purpose of the amendment was to reduce the sanctions—if I may use that shorthand term—available in these situations. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment was to strengthen as far as possible the closed shop in what the situation will be if the Bill is passed unamended. I therefore put the case to you, which I thought you had accepted—

Mr. Leighton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prentice: I hoped that you had accepted that I could argue the general case against the closed shop in arguing against the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the amendment, he will see that it deals with compensation on dismissal. I allowed him to go rather wide as a preamble to his speech, but he should now come back to the amendment.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you accept that the last 10 minutes of the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been out of order? He disagrees with the Bill because he wants to outlaw the closed shop. That is a personal idiosyncrasy. We are talking about compensation, and I raise this point of order because I feel that we should keep the debate to the issue of compensation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I told the hon. Gentleman a moment ago that if the right hon. Gentleman had been out of order I should have said so. I am now saying to the right hon. Gentleman that, having made his preamble, which has been reasonably lengthy, he should now come back to the amendment.

Mr. Prentice: As it happens, the preamble was the greater part of my speech.
I shall turn to the other part of my speech, which will be brief. In the absence of legislation to outlaw the closed shop, which I still want to see one day, we need to provide for the unfair dismissal procedure to be used in these cases, and for the levels of compensation to be such that there is a real sanction against either the employer or the trade union in conniving at closed shop situations, unless those closed shops are approved by the kind of majorities that are discussed elsewhere in the Bill.
In other words, although I am disappointed that we are not abolishing the closed shop, I hope that the Bill, through the compensation to which the amendment refers, will be the beginning of the end of the closed shop in Britain and that people will work hard to implement the proposals and to roll back the frontier of the closed shop.

Mr. Leighton: I had not intended to intervene. I was provoked into doing so primarily by the Minister's failure to give an honest or satisfactory reply to my question.

I was interest: ed in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the retrospective—one should perhaps say "retroactive"—payments to be made under clause 1. I shall not refer at length to that, but we are setting a precedent whereby the Secretary of State will sit in secret and on his own unfettered authority make retroactive payments going as far back as 1974 as though the legislation had been in operation since then.
That gives us a very good precedent for the future to recompense all the trade unionists who are clobbered by the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: I had not intended to give way, but for the Secretary of State—anything.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful for such an open invitation. Perhaps I may delicately correct the hon. Gentleman. He should not say that this will operate as though the legislation had been in force at that time. If that were so, the compensation would be paid by the employer, which is not the case. Moreover, if the legislation had been in force at that time, the dismissals would have been unfair. The Bill does not make those dismissals unfair. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that, but those who read or listen to our debates might not have perceived it from what he said.

Mr. Leighton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. We now know that the money is to be paid by the taxpayer. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will be delighted to know that in the future trade unionists can be retroactively compensated by the taxpayer rather than the employer for the iniquities inflicted on them.
The Under-Secretary of State made the bold statement that since the 1980 Act many people had been victimised or sacked under closed shop arrangements. I asked for the evidence. We know that the Government rested their case on the Gennard report. That report is in the Department, but it has been suppressed. Nevertheless, I asked the Minister to cite cases, as I believed that they could be numbered on the fingers of one hand.
If I am wrong, I am sure that I shall be corrected, but the only cases known to us are the four Walsall dinner ladies and Miss Joanna Harris. We have heard about those cases with nauseating repetition and crocodile tears, as though the Government were worried about dinner ladies. Yet dinner ladies have been slaughtered throughout the country. School meals are virtually a thing of the past. Apparently, we need not worry about all the dinner ladies who have been sacked—or, rather, made redundant. Yet the four dinner ladies who were not willing to pay their few pence to the union and who would otherwise still have their jobs form the basis on which the Government rest the whole burden of their case.
If it is not true that the number of cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand and if the Government can cite other cases—

Mr. Gerry Neale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: No, I shall give way to Ministers who know more about this. They have the information from the Gennard report. Let them contradict me if I am wrong, but I say without fear of contradiction that the number of cases can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the numbers involved alter principles?

Mr. Leighton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as the premise on which I base all that I say is that we should not discriminate in that way. That is the whole purpose of the amendment. Unfair dismissal is unfair dismissal, so why make fish of one and fowl of another? The Bill seeks to create a special category who will receive a large pot of gold while all the others who are unfairly dismissed will receive chicken feed. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has put his finger on it. Why should we single out that category?
At present, these cases do not exist. One wonders, therefore, whether the object of the huge bribes—these juicy carrots—is to conjure into existence such a category. I shall be interested to see whether the hon. Member for Rochdale and his Social Democratic partners vote in favour of the Bill. If we believe in equity, justice and respect for individual freedom, we should treat all cases of unfair dismissal equally. There should be equality before the law. We should not make fish of one and fowl of another, regardless of how many people are involved.

Mr. Harold Walker: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), he may recall that the hon. Gentleman did not lend his substantial weight to the case that I put to the Minister that we should at least consider following the example of the 1975 Act and extending this generous compensation to those discriminated against on grounds of sex or race. The Minister replied then that there was no case for doing so because there were few, if any, cases of people losing their jobs as a result of such discrimination.

Mr. Leighton: My right hon. Friend emphasises the justice of the case. I hope that I carry with me the considerable weight of the Liberal Party. We shall see whether the Liberals and Social Democrats support us on this. To me, hearing lectures from Ministers about unfair dismissal is a bit thick, when one of the first things that they did was to double from six months to 12 months the qualifying period for a worker to go to an industrial tribunal to claim unfair dismissal. To coin a phrase, that removed at a stroke the right of hundreds of thousands of workers to go to a tribunal. Moreover, for those employed by what were described as small firms the qualifying period was two years.
When the workers reached the tribunal, they found that as a result of the Prior Act the burden of proof had been transferred from the employer to the employee, making it far more difficult to prove unfair dismissal. Moreover, the basic award had been abolished, so that having suceeded at the tribunal and proved unfair dismissal a worker might still not receive even the previous basic award of two weeks' pay. Yet the same Government now tell us that this is a matter of personal liberty and freedom and how terrible it is for a person to be unfairly dismissed. We believe that unfair dismissal-is unfair dismissal.
What happens when the average person goes to the tribunal? In 1980, the median award, which is not quite

the same as the average but is very similar, was less than £600. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows well the Laurence Scott & Electromotors Limited case, in which a firm in his constituency bought up a firm in another town and sacked the workers without notice. One said that he had been treated worse than an animal and made without justification to feel like a criminal. The affair was denounced by the tribunal. The press said that the workers who had been unfairly dismissed had been given substantial and generous compensation. What was "substantial and generous"? Between £600 and £1,000, or an average of £800. That is what one receives for being treated like a criminal and sacked without justification.
5 pm
It is a serious matter to lose one's job. One's personality is bound up in a job. Under the present regime, with 3 million unemployed, it is impossible to get another job. For that one receives £600 or £800. But now we have a special group that will be given up to £31,050. That is unheard of. It is like winning the football pools. Where is the justice and the equality of that?
We have been regaled with the case of the dinner ladies. The Minister of State told us all about it in Committee. He referred to a Mrs. Todd who received a basic award of £98. The Minister said that that was obscenely low. Altogether Mrs. Todd got £3,600. What can we say about that? It is far more than most people get. It is much more than the median. It is much more than the people at Laurence Scott received. But the dinner ladies would not have lost their jobs if they had paid the few pence in union dues.
Others may be tempted, lured, incited or bribed into emulating Mrs. Todd. I believe that she was advised by the Freedom Association. No doubt that organisation will be active in future, approaching dinner ladies—there may not be many of them left—or similar people and saying "You will not get just £98 in a minimum award but an assurance of a minimum, on the basic award, of £2,000, tax free. You will get much more than two weeks' pay." The man from the Freedom Association can guarantee a minumum of £2,000.
One of the dinner ladies was getting £13 a week. If one is earning £13 a week and is guaranteed that by not paying union dues one can receive £2,000 in cash, it would be a temptation to agree. Moreover, it is only necessary to ask for reinstatment—the Minister explained that for a variety of reasons only 3 per cent. get reinstatement—and one automatically gets a minimum of £10,000 and possibly £20,000. If I were a dinner lady earning £13 a week I would be tempted to go along with that.
We are talking about double standards with a vengeance. There is a two-tier standard of awards and industrial tribunals. They are not awards, but rewards for those who drop out of trade unions.
I have always thought that the Minister believed in equality before the law. If a man loses his job through unfair dismissal it is a serious matter. Under a Conservative Government millions are losing their jobs and being thrown on the scrap heap. The only sympathy that the Government are showing is for five people. For people in similar situations they are giving huge rewards of up to £30,000.
The Opposition's case is that a job is a job is a job. Unfair dismissal is dismissal is dismissal. But under the Bill people will be treated unequally. We are making fish


of some and fowl of others. Two people could be dismissed from identical jobs, having served identical years of service, receiving identical wages. The hardship would be the same for both, but one would receive a few hundred pounds compensation and the other would receive tens of thousands of pounds. Where is the justice and equality in that? Where is the fair play? There is no concern for equity and individual freedom. The Bill is a crude attempt, using huge bribes, to attack what the Minister dislikes so much—100 per cent. trade union membership.
The Government are not outlawing unions, but they are creating double standards to achieve the same effects. It is a disgrace. The Department has a report on which it has spent a lot of taxpayers' money and on which the Government based their whole case. They have suppressed that report. They will not publish it, and that undermines their whole case. I ask the Minister to deny that the cases in the category to which he refers can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. How in justice and equality can the Government justify what they are doing?

Mr. Bill Walker: When we were discussing in Committee, at some length, matters affecting dismissal the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred to Mr. Ross McKay who, it was alleged, had taken a job with Strathclyde region in order to become unfairly dismissed. The hon.
Gentleman said:
Then there was our old friend, Mr. Ross McKay, the ex-National Front member, whom the Conservative Party has chosen to take under its wing. He has university degrees in politics and Russian. At a time when employment was easy to come by, he chose to become a caretaker in a college in Strathclyde region. That was his business, but it seems strange that he took the job shortly before Strathclyde region decided to embark on a union membership agreement. One cannot help thinking that he deliberately sought confrontation with his employer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 25 March 1982, c. 733.]
The allegation was disputed by Mr. Ross McKay. He says that he took the job two years earlier. It would be nearly three years before the legislation we are discussing would become effective. It is nonsense to suggest that he took a job in the summer of 1978 deliberately to seek confrontation with his employer. Why should he take a job just to do that? The facts given by the hon. Gentleman are not accurate and perhaps he would like to withdraw the comments that he made in Committee.

Mr. Michael Martin: I mentioned an ex-National Front member who became a Tory candidate. He campaigned under the banner of "Bring back hanging and flogging". I do not withdraw my statement that he took a job with the Strathclyde region in order to seek confrontation with his employer. I know, as an ex-full time employee with the National Union of Public Employees, that discussions had taken place with the unions, two years prior to the union membership agreement being signed with Strathclyde, on the possibility of a union membership agreement. Therefore, even if Mr. McKay had joined his employers two years beforehand, the union membership agreement was already signed, sealed and delivered. Possibly because of his activities in the National Front, and other extreme Conservative organisations, he would have known that the union membership agreement was in the pipeline.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not seek to read the full transcript of my contribution in Committee on that point. I mentioned that the authority had appeal processes when the union membership agreement was brought into being. It asked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not a speech, but an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.

Mr. Martin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was giving way. He was being very generous.

Mr. Martin: I had no intention of intervening.

Mr. Walker: I was giving the hon. Member for Springburn the opportunity to reply to the comments that I was making. I felt that it would be out of order for me not to give him the opportunity to do so. I warned him that I would be raising this matter and I thought that he would want that opportunity to reply.
What disturbs me is the suggestion that that gentleman, who was unemployed for some time before taking that appointment, should be considered as someone looking for trouble. I thought that he was looking for a job. The fact that he got a job is no reason why he should have been. made the victim of the practice the legislation seeks to deal with.

Mr. Martin: I have no wish to become involved in this argument because the hon. Gentleman was present in Committee and had every opportunity to ask me to give way. Is he aware that the gentleman whom he is trying to defend was about 36 before he went into any employment other than that of student? He was not exactly breaking his neck to seek employment.

Mr. Walker: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should feel that anyone of 36, who has been a student for a long time, should not try to find employment. I would be disturbed if that person did not. There are many more people of the hon. Gentleman's political conviction who are likely to fall into the category of being mature students than there are such people of my political conviction.
I am disturbed that anyone should imagine that simply because a person has qualifications he should not take a job that requires fewer qualifications. That is part of what the hon. Gentleman said. That belief is wrong. I shall give a personal example.
I drove a bus because it suited me, as I could organise the shifts so that I could also attend college. I was much more highly qualified than the other chaps driving buses, but I did not think that there was anything wrong in that. I was not looking for confrontation with my employer in the hope that I would be sacked because of the requirement to join the Transport and General Workers Union. I joined that union and became active in it. Perhaps the members of that union wished that I had not, but I did. As a result I learnt quite a bit about trade union activities.
The reason for the legislation is that in recent times there has been a change in the way in which certain authorities, particularly local authorities, have treated employees. That is why the legislation is necessary.

Mr. Waddington: I was saddened, but not surprised, by what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said.


The attitudes that he demonstrates are becoming more and more old-fashioned and less and less typical of people as a whole. He and other Opposition Members seem to be wholly unaware of the massive support for the Bill in the trade union movement. The hon. Gentleman may issue his threats, but it is highly unlikely that he will find many people who will follow him down the paths of unlawfulness and disorder that he hinted that he wished people to follow.
The hon. Gentleman urged the Labour Party to commit itself to returning to the trade union movement any money that the movement might lose as a result of the commission of unlawful acts. That would be a disgraceful policy to adopt. I do not believe that the Labour Party would be so absurd as to do so.
5.15 pm
With regard to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), I must be careful not to stray down the path of discussing whether it would have been wise to make the closed shop illegal. One can consider that possibility. I do not believe that the closed shop is a practice that can be defended. On the other hand, in Europe there are countries where the closed shop is supposed to be illegal but still continues to flourish. That is an illustration of the difficulties of banning the closed shop by law.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that he wanted equity and that everyone should be treated fairly. He committed two mistakes. First, the amendments tabled by the Opposition do not call for everyone to be treated equally because they call for increased compensation for those dismissed for trade union activity or as a result of sex or racial discrimination. The second error that he has committed is that he is forgetting that his party, when in Government, not only provided specially enhanced scales of compensation for those dismissed for trade union activity but gave those dismissed for trade union activity the opportunity to go to an industrial tribunal when that opportunity was not afforded to any other citizen.
For example, a person dismissed for trade union activity could go to a tribunal when there were fewer than four employees in the firm, when nobody else could claim unfair dismissal. The Labour legislation gave the right to someone who was unfairly dismissed for trade union activity to go to an industrial tribunal when he worked for fewer than 21 hours a week, when nobody else had the right to go to an industrial tribunal. Therefore, it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to claim that he wants equity and equality and to say that everyone should be treated in the same way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the compensation that is now payable to Mrs. Todd. She is finishing up with more than £3,000, £2,000 of which is additional compensation, payable because the Walsall council thought fit to defy the order made by the industrial tribunal to reinstate her. Is not that further evidence of the need for us to take further action?
It is a sobering experience to read the decision of the industrial tribunal in the case of the Walsall dinner ladies. One could not read a greater condemnation of the way in which that council behaved. The tribunal was left with the clear impression that the Walsall council had no intention of implementing the orders for reinstatement that had been made in the case of those dinner ladies.
The risks and costs arising therefrom were alarming in comparison with the fairly trivial financial risk involved in refusing to reinstate. In other words, the tribunal decided that the Walsall council came to the conclusion that it could not be bothered to reinstate those ladies because the ratepayers of Walsall would not have to pay all that much. There could not be clearer evidence of the need for us to proceed as we are at present in the Bill.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I wonder whether I could persuade the Minister to probe a little further the statement made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and to find out whether that represents the official view of the Labour Party. After all, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. He said that if trade unions were fined for breaking the law, the next Labour Government should take from the taxpayer the money that the unions paid in fines and repay it to the unions. Many of us would be interested to know whether that is the official view of the Labour Party or whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking for himself. Will the Minister persuade the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) to comment on whether the hon. Member for Bolsover was speaking for himself or on behalf of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party?

Mr. Waddington: The difficulty is that the hon. Gentleman invites me to probe the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but I have always had great difficulty in probing someone who is not present. Ps the hon. Member for Bolsover has left the Chamber, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will appreciate my difficulties. However, I invite the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) to say whether he condones—let alone approves—the type of approach being voiced by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
I understand that the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover has also been raised quite recently in the Labour Shadow Cabinet. Some have expressed the view that the Labour Party should commit itself to providing taxpayers' money to pay back to the trade union movement moneys that it might have had to pay as a result of committing unlawful acts. One cannot imagine a more preposterous suggestion and I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will take the opportunity to say that he does not subscribe to that wicked nonsense.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

AWARDS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES

Mr. Crowther: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 18, after 'begins', insert
'and only if the tribunal is satisfied that the granting of the re pest would not give rise to a substantial potential for considerable disruption to the disadvantage of the firm and its workers as a whole,'.
The amendment would restrict the circumstance s in which a trade union or individual trade unionists could be made joint respondents with the employer in a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal, where an employee had been dismissed for refusing to be a trade unionist. The amendment would allow the industrial tribunal to prevent a trade union or individual trade unionists from being joined in the action if the tribunal—which is an


independent, neutral body—felt that such an action would cause further damage to industrial relations or cause disruption within the firm.
This is entirely consistent with the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends throughout the Bill's long and tortuous progress. We have tried at every opportunity to reduce the potential damage to industrial relations which the Bill will cause. This provision is a further example of the way in which we are trying to reduce that danger.
The Employment Act 1980 allows an employer to join a third party in the action—whether that third party is a trade union or individual trade unionist—if the employer claims that he is subjected to some kind of pressure to dismiss the non-trade unionist who is taking him to the tribunal for unfair dismissal.
We opposed that in 1980. Nevertheless, it was written into the legislation. The present proposal goes much further and gives the power to make that decision to the individual who has been dismissed. It is no longer merely a matter for the employer to decide whether he thinks that the union should be involved; the person whom that employer has dismissed will now be able to make that decision.
He may have left that firm in an atmosphere of bitterness. He may feel that he has been pushed out by his former fellow employees, and he may also feel that his employer has let him down by giving in to that pressure. In other words, he has left with a chip on his shoulder and has no further interest in maintaining good relations in the firm that he has just left.
That is the proposal being written into the legislation. It will give that power to the dismissed employee even when the employer—for good reasons which he has no doubt closely examined—has decided that it is not in his interest for the trade union or individual shop stewards to be brought into the action. Power is being given to the dismissed employee to act not only against the trade union and his former fellow employees, but against his employer, who has decided that he does not want the union and employees brought into the case. That is a dangerous path to follow.
Two years ago, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—who has, unfortunately, left the Chamber—tried to write the same provision into the Employment Bill. He moved an amendment that would have included it. However, it was strenuously opposed by the then Under-Secretary of State, now Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew)—who made a strong speech against it. I drew the Committee's attention to the matter. Obviously Ministers were taken by surprise. It was clear from the look of incredulity on their faces that they had not realised what had happened in 1980. I appreciate that none of the three Ministers now responsible was in his post in 1980. Indeed, the same applies to all the Conservative Back-Bench Committee Members. However, none of them took the trouble to read the reports of the proceedings of that 1980 Standing Committee. If they had done so, they would have realised that the Government then strongly opposed the provision that they now seek to write into the Bill.
Given the time available, it would not be right to quote at length from the speeches made by the then Under-Secretary of State. However, it is reasonable to cite two or three sentences from his long and powerful speech. He said:
First, it is the employer who is ultimately responsible for the dismissal and who is in the best position to know what considerations led him to dismiss the worker. It is right therefore that he should meet the primary claim of unfair dismissal rather than any third party … All that he is concerned with"—
the dismissed employee—
I suggest, is that he has been unfairly dismissed, that the tribunal has so found, and that he should be compensated according to law in consequence.
I should have thought that that was a very reasonable position. A little later, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the dismissed employee and said:
Since he can get the whole of his compensation from his former employer, there appears to be no real reason why he should be given the right to proceed against the union, with possible consequential disruptive effects for the employer's industrial relations.
That is the key to the whole of our argument. Again, towards the end of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
there is a substantial potential here for considerable industrial disruption to the disadvantage of the firm and its workers as a whole, to say nothing of the employer himself."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,  11 March 1980; c. 1062–72.]
That was a powerful argument, and the hon. Member for Rochdale was soundly defeated in his attempt to write the provision into the Bill. It is now being introduced in the 1982 Bill.
I asked the present Under-Secretary of State what had changed since 1980 and what evidence had emerged in the last 18 months to show that the legislation needed to be changed. To my astonishment, I found that he had no evidence. All that he could say was:
I should say that there has been continuing and growing concern over the closed shop.

Mr. Harold Walker: That is not relevant.

Mr. Crowther: As my right hon. Friend says, it is not relevant. Even if it is relevant, it is not true. It is an expression of opinion. There is no fact behind it.
I am coming to a point to which the Secretary of State referred earlier this afternoon—the revelations in The Observer about Professor Gennard's report. It is the most comprehensive piece of evidence on the closed shop in existence. It is all very well for Ministers to say that it is not finished or ready for publication and is therefore not relevant to the debate, but I understood the Secretary of State to say earlier—and no doubt he will tell me if I have this wrong—that he had not even seen the report.
I now quote from what the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee. He said:
Professor Gennard has sent drafts of his report to my Department. Indeed, had we not seen some of the results of his research, we should scarcely be able to compare them with the results of Miss Helen Jackson's research, about which the Opposition have been so scathing and which I mentioned in my letter to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
Those drafts are now—and have been for some time—the subject of the discussion and detailed examination normal in commissioned research."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 March 1982; c. 218.]
Whatever the Secretary of State may say, it is obvious from this that Ministers have spent much time carrying out a detailed examination of the report.
As the Secretary of State claims not to have seen it, although it is clear that his Minister of State has not only seen it but examined it in great detail, perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether the quotations in The Observer are accurate.

Mr. Tebbit: I can help the hon. Gentleman immediately. "We", as used on that occasion, referred not to Ministers but to the Department generally, that is to the officials who had seen, in the course of preparing matter for publication, the work of Professor Gennard. It is not me or my colleagues who say that the work is not ready for publication and should not yet be published; it is Professor Gennard. When it is ready, and the professor thinks that it is ready, it will be published.

Mr. Crowther: I have no doubt that the House will attach what worth it thinks fit to that intervention by the Secretary of State. I think that it is worth nothing to suggest that Ministers have sat in their Department for weeks and weeks with the most important piece of work ever carried out on the closed shop, at a time when a Standing Committee spent 29 sittings examining the whole matter of industrial relations and trade unions, without looking at the report. I cannot believe that Ministers have not looked at the report.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Á propos of what the Secretary of State has just said, how does my hon. Friend rate the chances of Professor Gennard's report being published before the Bill has completed its proceedings in the other place and this place?

Mr. Crowther: I am extremely doubtful whether it will be published, because it is becoming more and more obvious that it completely destroys the Government's case for the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that, because I have said plainly and clearly that when the professor says that the report is ready to be published it will be published. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have an opinion, but he is not intitled to accuse me of an untruth.

Mr. Crowther: I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of an untruth. I am just saying that I think that the delay in the publication may go on and on for so long that there may be another Secretary of State in office before it is published. However, the point has been made clearly—at least the inference is quite clear—that Professor Gennard's report undermines the purpose of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the report, does he not agree that the most extraordinary thing of all is that the Secretary of State has just asserted that, despite the fact that the material is in his Department, he has not looked at it? He has not seen the report, but he comes before Parliament with what are probably the most far-reaching statutory proposals in relation to the very matter with which the report deals. Is that not a matter on which the Secretary of State should feel culpable and guilty? Having had this report commissioned at the expense of £60,000 of taxpayers' money, he ignores it and comes to the House with proposals that dramatically affect industrial relations without taking the trouble to read the report in advance.

Mr. Crowther: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. If the Secretary of State had a conscience,

it would no doubt be a guilty one. I have never seen any evidence that he has a conscience anyway. Therefore, I doubt whether he has a sense of guilt.
The point is that it is now crystal clear, whatever the Secretary of State may say, that the evidence, such as it is—and it may be considerable, although we have not been given the benefit of seeing it—supports the view that we have expressed, and opposes the view that the Government have expressed. The danger of considerable disruptions in public relations is therefore all the greater.

Mr. Dixon: In Committee, when we were discussing clause 1, did not the Ministers refer to the number involved in those entitled to this rough draft compensation and to the money for unfair dismissal, and quote a number of phrases from Professor Gennard?

Mr. Crowther: My hon. Friend is correct. They use this as the basis for what turned out to be a completely scurrilous estimate of 400. They later toned it down. They said that they started from this basis and then found that there were various things wrong.
I must not accuse the Secretary of State of saying something that is not true. If he says that Ministers have never seen the report, I must accept that. Presumably someone in the Department has shovelled little pieces of paper over to them, as they did with bewildering regularity in Committee. No doubt this is where they have the information. Perhaps it would have been better if they had looked at the report and drew proper conclusions from it, as we are seeking to do today from what little information we have been able to gather.

Mr. Giles Radice: Perhaps Ministers do not want to be confused by the facts.

Mr. Crowther: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Professor Gennard's report may be full of all sorts of interesting and even devastating facts, but what does it have to do with the amendment? We are discussing the request for awards against third parties. I submit that we have strayed far from the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the report has something to do with the awards. However, as I think that we are all in ignorance of the report, perhaps we should move on to a different tack.

Mr. Crowther: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason that I mentioned the report was that in Committee I was anxious to find out how the Government had changed their position from 1980. The only explanation that I or the Committee could get from the Under-Secretary of State was:
I should say that there has been continuing and growing concern over the closed shop."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 April 1982; c. 1082.]
On the basis of that sentence, where is the evidence of the "growing concern"? The only evidence that we have—the Gennard report—tends to show the opposite. That is why I felt it relevant to mention the matter. There is no other justification for putting this provision in the Bill. It provides a considerable incentive to troublemakers. Now, not only will they be able to take their employers for a ride to the extent of £31,000; they will be able to involve trade unions and their former fellow employees in the action.

Mr. Neale: Does the hon. Member for Rotheram (Mr. Crowther) agree that it gives another incentive to the trade union movement? In a contract of employment between an employer and an employee, if something occurs which means that the employee does not wish to leave his employment and the employer does not wish him to leave and feels that he has no grounds to get rid of the employee, yet the trade union feels strongly that the employee should go, why cannot the employee sue the trade union in any complaint that he takes up?
Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that, under his amendment, the trade union would have every incentive to threaten the most enormous industrial disruption in order to frighten off a tribunal?

Mr. Crowther: I gave the answer to that question when I quoted a few sentences from a speech by the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment two years ago. It provides the complete answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale).
The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) used the word "sanctions" in an earlier debate. He has let the cat out of the bag. I always believed that, in a case of unfair dismissal, the tribunal's job was to award compensation. Now the right hon. Gentleman is talking about sanctions. In other words, a penalty is to be imposed. That was an extremely interesting expression that I have not heard any Minister use, but which has given the game away.

Mr. Prentice: I hope that in practice the Bill will work in such a way that trade unions will be discouraged—which is a sanction—from trying to force people out of their jobs because they do not belong to a trade union in an organisation where a closed shop has not been legitimised by ballot. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), in his fairly lengthy speech, has not justified why he wishes trade unions to get off the hook of accepting the responsibility for acting in that irresponsible way.

Mr. Crowther: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be happy about employers unfairly dismissing people for any other reason, but he wishes to provide a sanction against them doing it for this reason. That difference, to which attention was drawn in the debate, is relevant to this amendment.
An enormous inducement is now provided to those who have been described in the past as bounty hunters to resign from the trade union knowing perfectly well that they will lose their jobs. For example, it is unthinkable for a non-trade unionist to work down a coal mine. There is no signed agreement about that. It is simply understood. Any coal miner who resigned from the National Union of Mineworkers would know that he would be dismissed. Under the terms of the Bill, he knows that he could take both the National Coal Board and the NUM to the tribunal and expect to receive compensation of up to £31,000. That is why we say that some safeguards should be provided by an independent neutral body such as the tribunal.

Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps I have not followed my hon. Friend's speech with my usual care, but he has not made the strong point that, for the first time, the regulation of industrial relations has been taken out of the hands of both the employers and the trade unions and put into the hands of a third party, who may be a bounty-hunting maverick.

Mr. Crowther: That is correct. I believe that I had already expressed that, although perhaps not in the same terms as my right hon. Friend. As in other parts of the Bill, the power to cause disruption is being handed over to third parties. We find that distasteful. That is certainly the case in the group of clauses dealing with the closed shop and compensation for non-union membership. An opportunity to cause immense damage to industrial relations is being provided for those who may be tempted by the enormous sums of money that will be available.
5.45 pm
The House now has an opportunity to reduce, to some extent, the damage that those clauses will cause. It can reduce what the Minister of State, Home Office—when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in 1980—called the "potential for considerable industrial disruption". Those words must be remembered, because he was speaking for the same Government. Now the Government appear to be quite happy to provide that potential and to give an opportunity to trouble makers or to mavericks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster rightly said. The House can restrict the danger of that happening.
This is a modest amendment. We say simply that the industrial tribunal should be able to consider the proposal to allow a complainant to bring in a third party. Only if the tribunal is satisfied that it will not cause "considerable industrial disruption" should it be allowed. It is no accident that the words in the amendment are taken directly from the speech made by the then Under-Secretary of State two years ago. All that we are asking is that the Government should be consistent and logical and provide for at least some protection against the disruption of industry through the clause as it now stands. This is a reasonable amendment which I commend to the House.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), with all his knowledge of trade union affairs, referred to the Standing Committee on the Employment Act 1980, on which I did not have the privilege of serving. It is a great pity that the Committee on this Bill, thanks to the delaying tactics of Labour Members, spent more than 50 hours on clause 1 and could not move on to serious and adequate discussion of some of the important middle clauses, such as this one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this clause introduces a new and important principle.

Mr. Crowther: rose—

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and I have very few minutes in which to make mine before my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply.
The Bill brings in the important new principle that a complainant can sue the trade union direct. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but he omitted the fact that the complainant can ask the industrial tribunal only to direct that the body that he claims exercised the pressure should be joined in the proceedings. The complainant must first convince the industrial tribunal that the union should be joined in the court proceedings. The claimant cannot do that directly, which provides an important safeguard.
The other point that the hon. Member for Rotherham missed was in failing to advance any reason why an employee who feels that he has been dismissed because of


union pressure cannot join the union in a civil action. The union has the power to see that such a person is dismissed. We all know that that has happened in the past and, doubtless, will happen in the future. Shop stewards and paid union officials can and will go to an employer and ask him to remove an employee because he is difficult. Under those circumstances, I can see no reason why the claimant should not have the right or the opportunity to persuade the industrial tribunal that the union should be joined in the civil action. The hon. Gentleman did not tackle or answer that basic point of principle.
At one moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman would develop the argument that unions cannot afford to pay, that they are too weak, too poor and that they do not have the assets. Poor little union, how will it manage?
I am reminded of the lovely package that was dropped into my lap, and doubtless into some other hon. Members' laps too. It is a package issued by the TUC called "Fight Tebbit's Law". In that great package of documents, which doubtless will be referred to throughout the proceedings, there is a fascinating sheet which refers back to 1834 and to the deportation of the Tolpuddle martyrs. In pleading the union's case, presumably about poverty and their ability to pay, it includes a photograph of a cheque issued in 1903 for £23,000 which the Amalgamated Society for Railway Servants was forced to hand over to the Taff Vale Railway Company. That is fascinating history, but it has absolutely no relevance to the present power and financial standing of the unions, and to their ability to pay damages if they are properly sued by an employee for having caused him to lose his job.
If the clause goes ahead as it stands it will be possible for those who have lost jobs to join unions in civil actions on the basis that it is the union's responsibility. We could therefore take comfort from the fact that, contrary to the picture put out by the TUC in this mass of documentation for which every trade unionist is being asked to pay 10p, whether he likes it or not, and as The Times reported yesterday, the TUC annual survey of union income and expenditure showed that affiliated trade unions now have assets of £250 million and an annual income of almost £200 million. Therefore, they have reached the point where they can stand on their own feet. I am delighted about that.
As I said in Standing Committee, I want to see strong, independent and democratic unions in Britain. If trade unions are sued by an individual on the ground that they caused him to be unfairly dismissed, they will have to pay the damages. That is a good thing.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) for mentioning the Tolpuddle martyrs because that helps me to comment on some observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). As everyone knows, I have a great affection for my hon. Friend and I always want to be of service to him. I am in a position to help him by explaining the truth about something that has puzzled him, namely, why a thesis that was strongly urged by a Conservative Minister in 1980, and was supported by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, is now considered to be outré by Conservative Ministers and by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.
My hon. Friend asked what has changed in the last two years. The change is that, as a result of the 1980 Act, we have had the only case since the Tolpuddle martyrs of a

man being deported from these shores for the crime of believing in proper trade unionism. That man is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, when he committed the crime, was Secretary of State for Employment. He is today's Tolpuddle martyr, sentenced to deportation not, as in the earlier case, to meet his death in the plantations of the West Indies, but to meet his political death on the streets of Belfast.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to remind him that the guillotine falls at 6 o'clock? He may wish to leave some time for the Minister to reply.

Mr. Mikardo: I am not responsible for the guillotine falling at 6 o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I voted against the guillotine. If Ministers are inhibited from contributing to the debate by the falling of the guillotine, I am wider no obligation whatever to rescue them from the consequences of their interfering with proper democratic debate. Therefore, with great respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not feel called upon to respond to what you have just said.
The change that has come about in the past two years is that the Secretary of State's predecessor, while he wanted to limit the powers of trade unions, and legislated to that effect, nevertheless did not want to carry out a vendetta against the unions nor to weaken them. Why do the Government now think it right that a complainant can join a trade union, when, as was said, what matters is that the complainant has his remedies? Why have they now added this new provision? It is not to give the complainant a remedy. He has that. This is not being done in the interests of the chap who alleges that he has been unfairly dismissed, because he has a remedy for that. It is being done for a quite different motive. That motive runs right through the Bill. Several opportunities are provided to attack the membership and the funds of trade unions.
There is a great incentive to people to give up their membership. That is an attack on the trade unions by attempting to reduce their membership. There is a great incentive to the bounty hunters to get money from trade unions to reduce their funds. A figure of £250 million has been mentioned. That is £25 for each member. That is not a great reserve with all the obligations and difficulties that trade unions face. They are now having to give a service to a substantial proportion of their members who are not paying dues because the Government have thrown 3 million people out of work.
The Secretary of State has deliberately set out to provide every conceivable incentive to every bounty hunter. Imagine a miner in a mining village whose wife says to him: "You know old Bill down the road, he retired last week because he won £30,000 on the football pools. He is going off with his missus to live in Cornwall. He reckons that with his pension, the bit that he has saved up and the £30,000 he will not need to work. Why don't you win £30,000 on the football pools?" That miner will Say to himself that he could. All he has to do is to stop paying his union dues. He will then be excluded under the union rules and will be sacked for not being a union member because no non-unionist works down a coal mine. He can then sue the union and get £30,000. Therefore, he can say: "All right dear, we will join our friends in Cornwall. Just give me six months to take advantage of the Employment Act 1982". That sounds like a joke but it is a feasible,


palpable and reasonable scenario under the terms of the clause and the Bill. That is why it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend that these provisions have been included for any decent purpose. This is being done only to damage, and things that are done to damage should not carry the commendation of the House.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): rose—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 307.

Division No. 153]
[6 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex


Adams, Allen
Eastham, Ken


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)


Anderson, Donald
English, Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Ashton, .Joe
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Atkinson, .N. (H'gey)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy(Greerwich)
Faulds,.Andrew


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Field, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fitch, Alan


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Flannery, .Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, RtHonAlbert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boothroyd, .MissBetty
Ford, Ben


Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W.E.(Wallsend)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp;P)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gourlay, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin F.
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Douglas


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Huckfield, Les


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Hon Greville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
John, Brynmor


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dixon, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobson, Frank
Kerr, Russell


Dormand, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lambie, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Leighton, Ronald





Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, J.W.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lyon, Alexander(York)
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


McDonald, DrOonagh
Sever, John


McElhone,Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Mrs Renée


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McMahon, Andrew
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McNamara, Kevin
Silverman, Julius


McTaggart, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Marks, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Marshal, I, D (G 'gowS 'ton)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Spriggs, Leslie


Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Stallard, A. W.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stoddart, David


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)


Millan,Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tilley, John


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Torney,Tom


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morton, George
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walker, Rt Hon.H.(D'caster)


Mulley, RtHon Frederick
Watkins, David


Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


O'Neill, Martin
White, Frank R.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Park, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'seaW)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Prescott, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Mr. Allen McKay and Dr. Edmund Marshall.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Brotherton, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Banks, Robert
Buck, Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Beith, A.J.
Bulmer, Esmond


Bendall, Vivian
Burden, Sir Frederick


Benyon, Thomas(A 'don)
Butcher, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W.S.


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Body, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, HonRobert
Clegg, Sir Walter






Cockeram, Eric
Howells, Geraint


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Costain, SirAlbert
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jopling, RtHonMichael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Elliott, Sir William
Lee, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, John
Loveridge, John


Fell, Sir Anthony
Luce, Richard


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fisher, SirNigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacGregor, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Forman, Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Freud, Clement
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Gardiner,George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marlow, Antony


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mawby, Ray


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, SirAnthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'thN)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, SirHector


Gummer, John Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Hon A.
Moore, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Cranley


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hooson, Tom
Osborn, John


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Parris, Matthew





Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John


Pawsey, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Penhaligon, David
Stevens, Martin


Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Pink, R.Bonner
Stradling Thomas,J.


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Peter


Porter, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townsend, CyrilD, (B 'heath)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rossi, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rost, Peter
Wall, Sir Patrick


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


St.John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard
Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam


Silvester, Fred
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.


Squire, Robin



Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an amendment moved by a member of the Government to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Clause 7

INTERIM RELIEF

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—

'(2) In subsection (3) of section 77 for the words from ", at least" onwards there shall be substituted—
give at the appropriate time—

(a) to the employer; and
(b) in the case of a section 76A request made at least three days before the date of the hearing, to the person to whom the request relates;
a copy of the application and certificate (if any) together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing.

(3A) In subsection (3) above—

(a) in relation to paragraph (a), not later than seven days before the date of the hearing;
(b) in relation to paragraph (b), as soon as reasonably practicable; and


'section 76A request' means a request made under section 76A(1) for the tribunal to direct a person to be joined or silted as a party to the proceedings".'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 11

PROHIBITION ON UNION MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 11, line 39, leave out clauses 11 and 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take also the following amendments: No. 22, in page 11, line 39, after '(1)', insert
Except insofar as it might be necessary to comply with the terms of a union membership agreement'.

No. 23, in page 11, line 43, leave out from 'unions' to end of line 47.

No. 24, in page 11, leave out lines 45 to 47.

No. 25, in page 12, line 1, after 'the', insert `declared and explicit'.

No. 26, in page 12, line 26, leave out from 'is' to `that' in line 33.

No. 27, in page 12, line 40, leave out from 'is' to 'that' in line 45.

No. 28, in page 13, line 5, leave out from `is' to 'that' in line 12.

No. 31, in clause 12, page 13, line 33, leave out `induces, or attempts to induce' and insert 'compels'.

No. 32, in clause 12, page 13, line 41, leave out `inducement or attempted inducement' and insert `compulsion'.

No. 33, in clause 12, page 13, line 44, leave out
'or can reasonably be expected to have such an effect'.

No. 34, in clause 12, page 14, line 22, at end insert
'but a policy of membership or non-membership of a trade union or a particular trade union shall not of itself constitute a reason for the purposes of this subsection unless the act is done pursuant to a complaint or demand in express support of that policy'.

Mr. Walker: Clauses 11 and 12 outlaw any requirement in a commercial contract for work to be done only by persons who are members of a trade union or of a particular union. The clauses go further, and impose a statutory duty not to exclude someone from approved lists of suppliers, or to terminate, or refuse to enter into, a commercial contract for reasons which include, whether explicitly stated or not, the provision that the work will be done by non-union labour. Failure to comply with that new statutory duty gives a right of civil action not only to actual or potential contractors but also, under clause 11(7)(d),
in any case, any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention".
That represents a further escalation of the Government's war against the trade unions. The Government have made it clear in a series of speeches and statements that they believe that union-only practices are a consequence of Labour control of certain local authorities. It is an added dimension of their vendetta against such authorities.
It was the Green Paper on trade union immunities that pointed out that those practices, in fact, extend much more widely. It specifically quoted civil engineering and construction. To some extent, the way was paved by the 1980 Act. During our debates both in Committee and in

the House on the 1980 Act it was recognised that union-only labour conditions in such contracts had been widespread in the printing and engineering industries for many years. One thinks particularly of the TASS agreement with the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies. I shall say a word about that in a few minutes.
We recall the then Secretary of State for Employment—now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—during the proceedings on the 1980 Bill talking about the much more moderate and modest provisions in the Bill. He said:
I hope—and we all hope—that the provisions of this clause will never have to be used, because it will only be used where coercive activities are imported".
He was then challenged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) about the fair list. The Secretary of State then continued:
We are not seeking to abolish fair lists, although most of us have grave doubts about the operation of fair lists as they were being operated by SLADE"—
that is, the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process Workers. They were part of the coercive activities.
The way fair lists are entered into as a result of an agreement—as is the case with the TASS agreement with the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies—is something with which we all ought to be able to live in good industrial relations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1980; c. 1574.]
I wonder what has happened in the two years that have intervened to compel such a radical change of thought by the Government.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like many of us, will recall—perhaps not so vividly as we who were involved in the Committee—many of the proceedings on the 1980 Bill. They are now the subject of further dramatic extension, not merely in this, as it has been pointed out, but in many other matters where the House had been given to understand that there would be a period during which the new statutory arrangements would be given a chance to be put to the test. Nothing has happened to justify the changes. This is one of the changes. I do not believe that it is for us to make out a case as to why our amendments should be accepted, but for the Government to justify their legislation.
The fair list practice is widespread in many industries. I recall that my father worked in the hat manufacturing industry in the town of Denton in Lancashire. It was then the practice that nothing was accepted from a supplier unless the firm employed the appropriate trade union labour. No one in that town was expected to wear a felt hat that did not have a label, "Made by trade union labour", stuck inside the brim. I believe that the practice still continues in the hatting industry.
It has been a widespread practice for an employer and trade unions in particular industries to agree that materials are produced and that subcontracting work is done by approved trade union labour. That has often worked to the mutual benefit to the parties that were signatory to the agreement. I have already mentioned hatting and printing. A good example is perhaps the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies, an organisation very much involved, as the name implies, in supplying engineering designs and labour to carry out engineering design work.
For a long time the TASS section of AUEW has had an agreement that requires those in the federation to employ only TASS labour. Where labour is supplied to another drawing office, it is also the agreement that this should be


TASS labour. It seems certain that such fair lists will now be outlawed by the Bill. It seems to me extraordinary that the then Secretary of State only two years ago should have said that fair lists were
something with which we all ought to be able to live
and now they are to outlawed.
I wonder whether the Government have thought through the potential consequences. I think of the closed shop in an engineering drawing office, established through the proper procedures of a ballot in which the requisite number have voted in favour of establishing a closed shop. It often happens in the engineering industry, perhaps due to a change of design, that there is a temporary overload of work and that people are brought in from outside. In future, it will not be possible to stipulate that the labour must be TASS labour. The consequence will be that nonunion labour can be imported into that closed shop. What will be the position in that drawing office where there has been an agreed closed shop, affirmed by procedures laid down by the Secretary of State? Will the closed shop be enforceable by the union? Or will any attempt to enforce it expose those enforcing it to action in the courts? It is not only the supplier of labour who may wish to sue. The Bill is not limited to that party. It refers also to
any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention.

Mr. Leighton: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the time in the Standing Committee when the then Secretary of State said that the fair lists were something
with which we all ought to be able to live
hon. Members had the benefit of the advice of the Solicitor-General who explained the legal meaning of what is now an Act. Both the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State gave their imprimatur to fair lists saying the they were so embedded in British industrial life that they were something with which they could live and which the Bill would not disturb.

Mr. Walker: It is true that we had the "benefit"—I put that word in inverted commas—of the advice not only of the Solicitor-General but also, at one stage, of the Attorney-General during our proceedings on the 1980 Bill. Despite our pleas for similar legal assistance on this Bill, we have been unable to persuade the Government that their legal luminaries should put in an appearance. Their presence would have been helpful. There is nothing to stop them sitting on the Government Bench at least to note points if not to respond to them.
It is a matter of great regret that neither the Solicitor-General nor the Attorney-General has been present during our proceedings. It may be that my words will be conveyed to some office in the Strand and that one of them will appear before our proceedings conclude. I hope that they attend before dinner rather than afterwards, although I am not suggesting that this will affect the quality of the advice that we receive.
In the drawing office where there is an established closed shop—it is not so hypothetical—which needs to take on additional temporary labour from outside and where the stipulation no longer applies that this labour should consist of members of TASS, so that people will be members of another union or not members of a union at all, the consequence may be an industrial dispute and perhaps a cessation of work. The person who has supplied the labour suffers damage because he has been unable to use it effectively, has not been paid for it and therefore has

a claim. The employer, the man who runs the drawing office, may have a claim against those who stopped work and disrupted his production. There are also those waiting for the products of the drawing office such as manufacturers of motor cars or toys. Because of nondelivery to showrooms, the distributors and wholesalers may have a complaint against those who have disrupted supplies. Even the customer waiting for the car will perhaps have an action under the wording of the clause.
I have referred to fair lists that operate in the printing industry. It may happen as a result of an industrial dispute arising from the employment of non-union labour or the sending out of work to a non-union advertising agency, and work arriving without the SLADE or NGA sticker, that there is an interruption due to industrial action. As a consequence, a whole range of people may have a claim against the trade union or the workers taking the action. This issue has not been clarified in our debates.

Mr. Renton: I had thought that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) intended to expand on his point. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the practice of print unions blacking art work done by small outside firms that do not employ union members?

Mr. Walker: I understand that men and women, faced with the loss of their jobs and little likelihood of being able to obtain new employment due to technological change, at a time of intolerable levels of unemployment, should seek to safeguard their jobs and to strengthen the arrangements through which they negotiate and defend their terms and conditions of employment. This is the purpose for which people combine in trade unions.

Mr. Waddington: In the instance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) referred, those people are defending their jobs, if that is their motive, at the expense of the jobs of others. They are trying to destroy the jobs of those doing the art work in other firms.

Mr. Walker: I must say that it ill lies in the mouth of a lawyer to talk in these terms when those who are not qualified according to the conditions and standards laid down by the practitioners in that profession are not allowed to practise. It ill lies in the hon. Member's mouth but I will answer him. That intervention shows his complete misunderstanding and ignorance of the realities of industrial relations. When the print unions such as SLADE or the National Graphical Association insist that at the printing end they will only handle work coming in from outside that carries their union sticker, they are seeking to defend as trade unionists the terms and conditions of employment of their members elsewhere; to safeguard the jobs of their members elsewhere by making sure that the work is carried out by the union and its members in accordance with the standards agreed by the trade union with the employers. That is one of the purposes of that kind of action. It is entirely understandable and is a longstanding practice which goes back at least to the last century and perhaps to even before then.

Mr. Renton: The fact that the practice goes back to the last century does not make it any better a practice.

Mr. Walker: The Government boast at the present time that there has been a significant improvement in industrial relations if measured by the incidence of strikes


and loss of days' production, or numbers of workers participating. Indeed there has, and we should all welcome it. What I deplore is what I believe is the underlying cause, that there is not much point in going on strike in the dole queue; they have no employer to strike against. That is the principal reason for the dramatic change in dispute figures. Nonetheless, we must all welcome it. If things are improving, then why do we need industrial relations Bills? Why do we need these controversial measures which can only be inflammatory and provocative?
I was at a meeting in Sheffield yesterday and there is not the slightest doubt about the seething anger and resentment amongst trade unionists, over 2,000 people there declaring that they will all go to gaol. I am not saying whether I agree with all that. I am merely indicating that this is the strength of feeling amongst workers and shop stewards about this legislation.
All that is because the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked "Because something goes back to the last century, is that a reason for not changing it now?" I am suggesting only that if things are improving, that is the right time to leave them alone and not to go meddling with silly nonsenses like this. The hon. Gentleman would suggest that we should look round for something to stir up the trade unionists, the same kind of diversionary tactic that we have seen for so long: when there is a problem, turn attention away from it by looking elsewhere. Trade unionists are always good for whipping boys.
I was rather provoked by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. I had not intended to go on for so long and I shall try to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I must finish off the illustration I was in the midst of when I was interrupted. I was seeking to illustrate how, if a dispute affects the publication of a magazine, a great number of people down the line will be affected: those who produce the magazine; the many advertisers in the magazine who look to the advertising to boost their sales and whose sales as a consequence might be adversely affected if the magazine is not printed; the wholesalers; the retailers; all those engaged in the distribution, the newsagents, all those people who depend on the magazine for their living; right down to the lady who goes along complaining that each week she looks for the Thursday recipe to make the old man's dinner and this Thursday it had not been printed and she has to tell him "It's fish and chips again, Fred. The magazine's not been printed."

Mr. Leighton: Nothing to wrap his fish and chips in either!

Mr. Walker: In all these cases, apparently under the provisions of this Bill, all those parties would be adversely affected. Therefore, all under this new statutory provision would have a right to sue the union for damages. I said in the Standing Committee that obviously what would happen is that that kindly lady who could not make dinner for her husband would seek the advice of a solicitor and would be told "Look, love, at best you are only going to get a few bob if you are successful, and you risk losing perhaps one hundred quid", or whatever the legal fees are. "Therefore, you would be well advised to forget it."
At some stage right down that chain there must be a point at which the feasibility of pursuing the new personal remedy begins to fade, but along the line will be a whole string of people who will be able to claim either under the

subsequent provision that limits the amount that a trade unionist can be sued for—presumably it does—and a whole series of actions costing the trade unions or the individuals concerned a lot of money. That is an extraordinary provision in what are clauses that can only be disruptive of industrial relations. The two clauses are a recipe for quite needless conflict, quite unnecessary strife, and the only people who benefit are the lawyers. No wonder the Under-Secretary is in favour. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) who has now joined us will be well aware of what is to be made out of those provisions. They are the only people who will be rubbing their hands and looking forward to making something out of this Bill. For the rest it will mean needless trouble and strife, and the sooner the Government have a rethink about these silly things and drop them the better it will be.

Mr. Michael Martin: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). One of the problems I see in what the Government propose is that the Government often argue that they are in favour of giving rights to the individual. As an individual I have a right when I purchase goods to ask the person who is selling those goods whether they were made by trade union labour. If they were not produced by trade union labour, I have the right to refuse to buy them.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Martin: I am just making my point, and I will give way in a few moments.
In the Labour movement, especially at election times when we in the Labour Party get involved in printing and ordering printing for political leaflets, we always insist that any printer we employ or give a contract to employs trade union labour. Over a period we receive many circulars from printers who make it a point of advertising that they employ trade union labour and that any subcontractors that they have are also trade union labour. These printers are specifically going out of their way to seek work from people who are conscious of the trade union movement and want to be involved and make sure that they are hiring trade union labour. It is the right of any individual group to be able to do this, but this legislation means that we in the Labour movement will not be allowed to ask for such assurances from printers or from anyone else whom we employ.
In my city of Glasgow we have a strong Co-operative movement. Unfortunately, the Cowlairs co-operative in my constituency closed last year because of certain difficulties, but for at least 90 years it was very strong in Springburn. Many people would not buy their goods from any place other than that co-operative. They bought their cigarettes, shoes, clothes and anything from a needle to an anchor in the co-operative because they knew, without asking, that the goods had been produced by trade union labour. That was their right. In a working-class area like Springburn, people are entitled to seek those assurances, yet that is something that the Government are taking away.
One reason why the co-operative has closed is, unfortunately, the high unemployment in Springburn. People are buying fewer goods. As a result, the co-op was forced to close. The Government say that they are concerned about the rights of individuals. They keep talking about the school ladies and the environmental health inspector who got the sack. They say that this


legislation is to help people to exercise their rights. In that case, people should be entitled to exercise their right to buy from organisations which employ 100 per cent. trade union labour.
There are difficulties in this legislation for the building industry, which has few firms which are all trades companies. When a building company gets a contract to build a shopping complex, a hospital or any other building, it is usually required to bring subcontractors on to the site. Many non-trade union subcontractors in the building industry can be regarded as cowboys. The main employer may have a good safety record, but it is not easy for the employee or the trade union member to avoid coming into contact with a non-trade union subcontractor, many of whom have bad working practices. It can be dangerous for that person to work alongside the subcontractor. Let me give an example. Sand blasting often takes place on building sites. Although the main contractor may have high safety standards, the people doing the sand blasting, possibly employed by a company which employs two or three men, may be a bit slapdash. That can have a harmful effect on an employee who is working, say, 100 yards from the sand blasting. That is the type of difficulty that arises.
There is another problem in the building industry. If the main contractor has 100 per cent. trade union membership and has a good relationship with his employees, it is unlikely that there will be a strike. If non-union labour is allowed on the site, that non-union labour may be seeking better conditions, and may decide to organise themselves and perhaps join a trade union. If that happened, and if the employer decided that he would not employ anyone who was in a trade union, there could be a strike of a subcontractor on the site. Anyone who has worked on a building site will understand the difficulties that could lead to. If the subcontractor is doing a certain job, and if that subcontractor is in dispute, the employees of the main contractor will naturally refuse, if they are good trade unionists, to touch the work. The work of the whole site could be held up, not by the actions of the trade union labour, but by that of the non-trade union labour which sought to get themselves organised.
6.45 pm
It would be only natural for the good main employer with 100 per cent. trade union labour to say to himself "If I have 100 per cent. trade union labour and I have good relationships with my employees, I am going to make sure that no one comes on this site who will cause disruption or difficulty and thus hold up the contract". The Minister will know that contractors in the building industry work on a very low profit margin, and have to be very careful about their schedules and timetables.
The intention in clauses 11 and 12 is partly to prevent the blacking of work. When industrial problems arise, most of them are resolved between the employees or the union members and the employer. That may be difficult, but usually it does not involve a third party. However, sometimes, in order to break a strike, an employer sends out to subcontract work which is normally done by his own employees. In those circumstances, if the men are in dispute and decide to strike—men and women do not lightly decide to go on strike, in spite of what the Conservative Party may say; no one readily throws away his or her chances of earning a living; it is a big decision to make—and the employer puts the work out to contract,

the men and their colleagues in the trade union movement have every right to black the work and see that that work is not transported from A to B, or the raw materials taken to a subcontractor, or vice versa.
I accept that blacking is a dirty word, but if men are in the street fighting for their livelihoods, and if an employer decides to put work out to a subcontractor, those men have every right to object and ask for the support of the trade union movement to stop it. If non-trade union labour is carrying out the work, the men have every right to approach the people who are involved in transporting the goods to stop that work being carried out.
The Minister will accept that in disputes there are faults on both sides. There are few disputes which are purely the fault of the employer or of the men. There are usually faults on both sides. Why should an outside company be brought in and given work, thereby causing a situation which can only be described as strike breaking? An honest employer would do his best to sort out his industrial relations. It is a myth to say that industrial relations in this country are bad. If the Minister looks at the industrial relations record and the strike record in this country, he will see that it is not the picture that he and the Conservative Party have tried to paint.
Clauses 11 and 12 will create great difficulty in industrial relations. No one with experience of industrial relations can honestly say that they will go a long way to help. Industrial relations are improving day by day because there are determined men and women both in the trade union movement and in management who want to bring about better industrial relations. The best action for the Minister to take is to keep well out of the matter. Since the Bill came before the House, he has demonstrated that he knows very little about industrial relations.

Mr. Renton: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I was interested, even entranced, by his point that he had the right, when buying anything, to ask whether it had been made only by union labour. Is he serious? When he goes to Marks and Spencer to buy a pair of winter woollies, does he really ask the girl behind the counter whether the garment has been made by union labour? If it has not, will he buy another? If he does, they must find him an extremely strange customer.

Mr. Michael Martin: I do not go into Marks and Spencer to buy winter woollies. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have known that I said that people are entitled to ask whether goods have been made by trade union labour. An employer is entitled to advertise that he employs 100 per cent. trade union labour. I specifically mentioned the Co-operative movement.

Mr. Renton: Whenever I go to Glasgow—I do so frequently as my wife's family come from Ayrshire—I make a point of wearing winter woollies to protect myself against the climate. That explains my analogy.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) put words into my mouth. During his speech on clause 11, I asked whether he supported print unions blacking the art work that is often provided by small non-union companies. In defence of that practice, the right hon. Gentleman said that it often went back to the last century. I then said that that does not necessarily make it a good practice. He elaborated by saying that I had said that because the practice goes back to the last century we should abolish it.
I did not say that at all. But the practices that we have witnessed, such as that of SLADE and other unions in the art and print world using their power to black subcontracted work from smaller firms which are not 100 per cent. unionised, is disgraceful. It has upset many people and lost many jobs. As the Minister said, even if the practice is preserving jobs in the print shops, it is getting rid of jobs in small companies which do not employ 100 per cent. union labour. The practice is not defensible.
It is odd that the Opposition amendment has grouped clauses 11 and 12 together in an attempt to drop both from the Bill. This is the rush, hotch-potch Opposition that we often saw in Standing Committee. There is little relationship between clauses 11 and 12. They should be treated separately. They are among the most important clauses in the Bill.
The ridiculous quantity of time that Opposition Members spent in delaying tactics on clause 1 meant that we did not have the opportunity in Committee fully to consider clauses 11 and 12 as we should have done. If anyone is glad about that, it is my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I suspect that they would have been worried by deep questioning from the Opposition on clause 12, such as on the subject of vicarious liability and whether actions that have been authorised by shop stewards can be repudiated by paid trade union officials. That is a tender point for the Government. However, the Opposition were busy earning their reputation and enabling themselves to go to the TUC to say that they had spent 50 hours on the Bill and were still on clause 1. They were so busy making a public relations point that they never got down to clause 12 until the last day.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I may lay to rest the canard about clause 1 and the Opposition's handling of it in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that clause 1 saw the light of day only when the Government presented it in the Bill. There had been no consultations. The Opposition suggested in Standing Committee that clause 1 would more sensibly be taken at the end so that consultations, which we felt were crucial to those who would be affected by it, could be made. The hon. Gentleman voted with the Government, ensuring that we did not have that chance. If there was inadequate debate on the later clauses, it has nothing to do with what the Opposition said. It was the result of the guillotine motion that the Tory Government imposed and for which the hon. Gentleman voted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I allowed the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) to reply but, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), he is getting wide of the amendment.

Mr. Renton: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Protection may not be the correct word. My favourite definition of a canard is a malade imaginaire. That is why the right hon. Member for Doncaster spent so much time debating clause 1–50 hours protecting 400 imaginary sick people. The Opposition wasted time. That should be repeated over and again, as they did not do their duty properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is still far from the amendment. He must come to it.

Mr. Renton: I shall return to it straight away.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends keep making allegations about the conduct of the Opposition in Committee. Do not the hon. Gentleman's remarks cast reflections on the competence with which the Chairman of the Standing Committee acted? Do they not imply that she allowed time-wasting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see no such reflection on the Chair. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Renton: I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure. Clause 11 ensures that the practice of union labour-only subcontracting is not extended. The practice has been noticeable in some local authorities. It is a way of subtly, or not so subtly, extending the closed shop irrespective of whether those to whom the closed shop is extended wish to be members of a union. The process is that pressure is brought to bear on a local firm. Unless its employees join a union and unless there is a closed shop, the local authority—itself unionised—will not place business with it.
7 pm
The background reason for the clause is very well expressed in a document drawn up by a committee of NALGO, formulating its opposition to the Bill and giving its reasons for opposing the various clauses. Paragraph 34 of that document, entitled "Union Labour—only subcontracting," states:
The effect of clauses 10 and 11 will be to make it impossible for us"—
that is, NALGO
to put pressure on any employer of NALGO members to place contracts only with contractors who use union labour. A major consequence of these clauses will be felt in DLOs, where some local authorities require building contractors to confirm that they employ trade union members when tendering for contracts. This practice will be made illegal, and as a result, allow contractors who pay below union negotiated rates to underprice DLOs and gain an advantage in tendering.
The paper then goes on to point out the danger of an increase in non-union, non-local-authority controlled services and contractors.
NALGO has seen and expressed precisely the reason why the clauses are in the Bill. They will make it more difficult for union labour-only subcontracting to be extended by local authorities in particular; and it is a very good reason why the provisions as drafted should be supported.
As I have said, clause 12 deals with vicarious liability and the question of which union official can authorise or repudiate an action for which, if it is unlawful, the union will for the first time in many years be liable to be sued for civil damages in the courts. Clause 12 goes to the heart of the Bill. At the risk of angering the right hon. Member for Doncaster again—if he were listening, which he is not—I must point out that clause 12 was taken on the last day of the Standing Committee, grouped with other clauses and had to be taken at a canter due to the foolish tactics of the Opposition. It was not adequately discussed in Committee. We did not get fully to the bottom, for example, of the degree to which unpaid shop stewards could authorise strike action for which the union might subsequently be sued for damages. Equally, we did not solve the problem of who could repudiate such actions.
I hope that the Minister will give us a little more information on this, as it lies at the heart of the Bill and we should know what will be the position in relation to official and unofficial action and who will be able to authorise or repudiate it.

Mr. Crowther: I am extremely concerned about the obvious failure of Ministers properly to understand the implications of these clauses. Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), we dealt with this at some length in Committee. Unfortunately, however, we failed to impress the Government with the points that we put forward. I do not know whether there is any better chance of doing so today.
The ripples of this will be felt throughout the whole range of contracts, from the very large ones placed by public bodies and large private companies to the very small ones placed by individual householders. All are covered by the provisions.
At the large contract end, all manner of spurious claims will arise. Anyone who has been involved, as I have, in producing lists of tenderers in local government, for example, understands that there are difficulties involving leaving companies off the list, not for any trade union reason but because one has reason to suspect, even without a great deal of positive proof, that they may not be capable of delivering on the target date or that their workmanship may not be so high as one would wish. For all kinds of reasons based on reliable information but perhaps not easily provable in court, companies may be left off lists of tenderers.
Under the clause, any company that is left off for one of those good reasons but which happens also to be a non-trade union company will immediately take the authority to court and claim that it was omitted for trade union reasons. All manner of spurious claims will arise.
Further down the scale, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) have pointed out, other difficulties will arise. At some points, the clause descends into the realm of pure farce. For example, if the Musicians Union organises a dance and decides that it wants a union band to provide the music, it will be in breach of its statutory duty. If a printing union decides that it wants its own journal to be printed only by union printers, it will be in breach of its statutory duty. That is the kind of comic opera situation that will arise. I am afraid that Ministers have not fully appreciated the implications. How silly it would be if a non-trade union printing firm took, say, NATSOPA to court for having its own journal printed by union labour. Yet that could be the result of the clause.
Finally, I am afraid that the public are unaware of the implications for individual householders and the danger in which they are placed by the clause. If an individual citizens wishes to have his house painted or to have a small extension built and decides, because he is a trade unionist himself, that he wishes a trade union firm to do that work, he will be in breach of his statutory duty and can be taken to court by any non-trade union firm that did not get the job even if the householder has never heard of the firm.
That is the position under the clause as it stands. We tried to amend it in Committee, but the Government strenuously resisted all the ways in which we tried to make it more understandable and to knock off some of the worst

rough edges. The clause therefore comes to us totally unamended, so the only logical thing to do now is to leave it out completely. I earnestly urge the House to do so.

Mr. Don Dixon: I wish to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and the points made in Committee by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) about the construction industry. Labour relations are difficult enough in an industry with a multiplicity of trade unions. The men are probably living away and, just when the people running the site have eventually got labour relations smoothed out, a small contractor with non-trade union labour may come along and upset the whole labour relations set-up on the site. That great danger was pointed out in Committee and was mentioned again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred to another important matter both in Committee and again today. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that we are not talking about NALGO or big unions here. Many small contractors could be involved. The council on which I served until last Thursday has a housing advisory scheme whereby people requiring extensions to their houses apply to the local authority. The local authority takes that application on board and puts it through for planning permission. It goes to the finance committee for a grant to be agreed. The householder is then told that everything has gone through the council and it is up to him to arrange a contract for the work to be done. The council issues a list of contractors who carry out small jobs. If one of the contractors is a trade union-only contractor, employing two or three men, and is picked by the householder, according to the clause the other firms on the list could object if they believed that the householder picked I he contractor because it was a trade union-only firm.
Many people who have been made redundant due to the Government's policies have used their redundancy payments to build extensions on their houses. They decided to employ a firm that used only trade union labour. Under this clause they could be taken to court by other contractors who believe that they were wrongly excluded from carrying out the work. That is why the Opposition want the clause to be rejected.
I refer to an article in the Evening Chronicle on 26 March.
Building federations in the North-East today stood united in their condemnation of cowboy con-men and their firms who are giving the trade a bad name.
The article referred to many small contractors who are not completing jobs to standard and that are, in the main, employing non-union labour. That is relevant to the clause. I hope that the House accepts the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and rejects clause 11.

Mr. Waddington: Many people must be worried by the Opposition's inability to recognise an abuse when it stares them straight in the face. I think that virtually everyone recognises that abuses are occurring every day as a result of union labour only contracts.
It would have been understandable if the Opposition had said that abuses occur, but that on the other hand it is a necessary practice and one must put up with the odd


abuse. But it is amazing to see the Opposition almost congratulating themselves on lending support to these obvious abuses.
In Committee the Opposition recited a catalogue of wildly improbable examples of people who will be caught by the provisions. We had examples of Scottish ladies who feared to have their bathrooms painted by those dangerous maniacs, the painters who do not have a union card in their hip pockets. We had other Scottish ladies who would live in terror of being dragged off to court for having put out to general tender a painting job costing half a crown. What absolute nonsense that all is. It is fanciful nonsense to suggest that ordinary householders will be caught by these provisions. Unless the lady in Glasgow goes to the extent of putting an advertisement in the Glasgow Herald saying that she has been a naughty girl and has given a painting job to a man solely because he is a member of a union she has nothing to fear.
We must put the record straight. Union labour only clauses are bad. They are a means of enforcing union membership by the back door by using commercial pressure. The message is "You see that your work force is unionised. Sack those who will not conform or you will never get a contract again." Such restrictions are uncompetitive. They are used to prop up inefficient direct labour organisations in local authorities. They are bad for the ratepayer, for the taxpayer and for the country. They are indefensible.
There are real abuses. I am absolutely amazed that the Opposition cannot recognise that innocent people are seriously harmed by these practices. Dozens of small building contractors in places such as Darlington suddenly get a letter from the council informing them that they will never get work again unless they undertake to do it with union labour only. The small family haulage firm that for years has worked in and out of the docks suddenly finds its way barred and its business threatened by a shop steward who has taken it into his head to ask the driver for his union card. Employees of a graphic design company find that their livelihoods are put at risk because unions at the printing houses decide to turn away their work as it does not carry a union sticker. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right; it is no doubt done by some people in the printing houses because they believe it is necessary to secure their own jobs. However, make no mistake about it, their actions are threatening the jobs of others and driving many small firms out of business.
7.15 pm
Have the Opposition forgotten what was said in the Leggatt report? Not only did Mr. Leggatt find that the workers who were being compelled to join a union by the antics of SLADE did not want to join SLADE, but he found also that when some of them had been bullied into union membership the union could do nothing for them and did not even begin to understand their needs or problems. He concluded—everyone who seeks to continue these practices should ponder his words:
when employees are coerced into joining a union against the alternative of being put out of business, the union subscription is bound to look like payment for a licence to work or 'protection' money.
Those words should be remembered by the Opposition.

Mr. Leighton: All this was rehearsed two years ago. We were told that the 1980 Act remedied any abuses

mentioned in the Leggatt report. That matter has been dealt with. Will the Minister explain what has changed in the two years since the then Secretary of State said that the system of fair lists as operated, for example, by TASS was something with which we could live? The Leggatt report was dealt with in the previous Act.

Mr. Waddington: I do not agree that the 1980 Act tackled the problem. It was hoped that section 18 would do so, but to the best of my knowledge it has not. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is looking for evidence of what has happened since then he should consider Darlington, Camden, Tower Hamlets, Brent, Walsall, Kirklees, Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Newcastle, Wigan and The Wrekin. That is a list of shame of local authorities which have been perpetrating these practices, but the hon. Gentleman asks me what has happened since 1980. For a start, Darlington has happened since 1980.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going on about the Leggatt report and SLADE. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East rightly asked why the hon. and learned Gentleman is trotting out all this stuff from Leggatt when we were told two years ago that the legislation would stop all that. What has happened to justify the hon. and learned Gentleman once again trotting out all this hoary stuff about Leggatt?

Mr. Waddington: I would not have given way if I had known that the right hon. Gentleman was going to waste the time of the House. I was quoting from the Leggatt report because it demonstrated the recruiting tactics used by some unions. If that is not an argument against the existence of union labour only contracts, I do not know what is.
We are told that union labour only requirements are contained in collective agreements. That cannot possibly sanctify them or make them respectable. What right has an employer and a union to impose their agreement on others? They can make an agreement between themselves and decide that they want everybody in the workplace to be a member of a union, but by what right do they say that nobody else should work in the place on a commercial contract without being dragooned into the union?
We are told that the Bill will stop employers taking on the contractors of their choice. That is not true. There is nothing to stop a person deciding not to give his work to a certain person, provided that he does not discriminate on the grounds of union membership or non-union membership.
The argument about safety is always dragged up and put forward as an excuse. There is no necessary connection between the holding of a union card and safety. Even if the card proves safety, the absence of a card would not prove the opposite. There is no evidence that firms that are not unionised pay less attention to the need to look after the safety of their staff than firms that are unionised.
The only way to judge a man is by his record, not by what he carried in his hip pocket. There is nothing in clause 11 to prevent an employer applying rigorous standards of safety to the firms to which he is subcontracting. There is nothing that forces him to do business with cowboys or unsafe firms.
I know that I shall annoy the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) by going back to the Leggatt report. None of the people who were referred to in that


report and who were injured by the tactics of SLADE were moonlighters, cowboys, free riders, or whatever rude term the Opposition apply to them. They were ordinary working men and women who wanted to get on with their jobs free from interference and intimidation. One of the purposes of the legislation is to see that they shall be able to do so.

Mr. Leighton: It is too much to re-run Leggatt and SLADE two years later. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a long list of shame, including Darlington and Doncaster. Could the Minister give us any references in the Leggatt report to any such places? He knows that he has no evidence from Leggatt.

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman asks a silly question, he is likely to receive a silly answer. Of course, there is nothing in the Leggatt report about local authorities. Since 1980 abuses have occurred in local authorities involving the use of the system of union labour only contracts to try to circumvent some of the disciplines that were imposed by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. By doing so, they do grave harm to individual contractors who have been doing valuable work for local authorities for years. It is high time that the local authorities realised the harm that they are doing.
I am not ashamed to mention the Leggatt report. Whatever was the effect of the 1980 Act on the practices followed by SLADE, one cannot condone for one moment a practice that tries to compel union membership—

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leggatt report has nothing to do with local authorities. The Minister is misleading the House if he refers to the Leggatt report in relation to local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister will decide the context in which he refers to any report.

Mr. Waddington: The debate goes much wider than local authorities. I have shown the abuses that occur in local authorities. I have already described the abuses that take place at the docks and in haulage companies. This will not please the hon. Gentleman. I have already described the abuses that occur in printing houses, of which I gather he knows a lot. He knows the abuses that take place there and how the tactics pursued by the printing unions are depriving other people of jobs. He has nothing to be proud of.
We have heard a lot about too many people being afforded a remedy under the Bill. There is no point in a person who has no connection with the granting of a contract suing because he will not get to first base. He will not have the faintest chance of recovering damages or getting an injunction against the firm that awarded the contract discriminately on union labour grounds.
To say that the clause is too wide and that therefore dangers will occur is complete nonsense. I could sue the right hon. Member for Doncaster tomorrow for having run into my car. He has never seen my car, but I could still sue him. He has no protection against my suing him. He has abundant protection against my succeeding in getting damages against him because I could not get to first base and prove that he had damaged my car.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister must do better than that. Clause 11(7) states:
Subsection (2) above does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following".

Those people are referred to in clause 11(7)(a), (b), (c) and (d), which states:
in any case, any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the clause means something other than what it is saying. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman must take back the Bill for redrafting. I hope that he will deal with he serious point that I raised. He has dealt with other matters, but has studiously ignored my case about the Federation of Engineering Design Companies, its relationship with TASS and the problem that may arise when there is a legitimate closed shop in a drawing office which is disrupted by non-unionists being imported by an agency, to which in future an employer can no longer say that it must send only trade union members. Will the closed shop be disrupted, or will it be able to continue legitimately?

Mr. Waddington: How on earth in logic can the closed shop extend to people other than employees of the employer? Employers and employees have no right to enter into agreements that will affect people who will not be employees of the employer and who will not get any of the rights that are granted to employees under our employment protection legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to clause 11(7). We have been willing to learn at his feet. I assure him that there is a clear precedent for the wording of clause 11(7). It can be found in the Resale Prices Act 1976, which provides that the obligation to comply with sections 1, 2, 9 and 11
is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of them".
Those were the appropriate words for that Act and they are the appropriate words for this Act.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me who might benefit under clause 11(7)(b). The subcontractor or contractor may suffer as a result of the contractor being disqualified from getting a contract because he is not wholly unionised. It would be proper for that person to claim damages because he has been deprived of work. It would be proper for the employees of the contractor, who have been gravely damaged and perhaps thrown out of work by that iniquitous practice, to go to a court and claim damages. Why not? This is not a bosses' charter, but a worthwhile reform that will go a long way towards giving further protection to ordinary working people who do not now have adequate protection. We are also comforted by the fact that there is widespread support for this action.

Mr. Den Dover: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many building and civil engineering contracting firms were disappointed when this provision was not included in the Employment Act 1980? Those firms are still suffering from unfair discrimination. Will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance to those firms that he will monitor carefully the removal of these penal clauses?

Mr. Waddington: We shall keep an eye on the legislation.
We are not putting on the statute book something that has only slight support. In the representations that were made following the Green Paper there was overwhelming support for our taking action in this area. It has been said on the Opposition Benches that the building employers are against the change. Far from it. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers asked us to take this step,


as did the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. We are carrying out a well worthwhile reform, which has overwhelming support in the trade, the country, among ordinary people and among trade unionists as well.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 305.

Division No. 154]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan


Adams, Allen
Flannery, Martin


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ford, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Foulkes, George


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Graham, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp;P)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Cant, R. B.
Holland, S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Homewood, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hooley, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cook, Robin F.
Janner, Hon Greville


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
John, Brynmor


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Kerr, Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lamborn, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dormand, Jack
McElhone, Frank


Dubs, Alfred
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dunnett, Jack
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Eadie, Alex
McMahon, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)
McTaggart, Robert


English, Michael
McWilliam, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marks, Kenneth


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)


Field, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy





Maxton, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mikardo, Ian
Snape, Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stallard.A.W.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stoddart, David


Morton, George
Strang, Gavin


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Straw, Jack


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tilley, John


Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Park, George
Torney, Tom


Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V,)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weetch, Ken


Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


Radice, Giles
White, Frank R.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
White, J. (G'gowPollok)


Richardson, Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Robens, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ryman, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sever, John



Shearman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hugh McCartney and Lawrence Cunliffe


Short, Mrs Renée



Silkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Antony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick


Ancram, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Arnold, Tom
Burden, Sir Frederick


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, ThomasA (A'don)
Churchill, W.S.


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Cockeram, Eric


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, Sir Albert


Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Denshore


Brotherton, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward






Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Langford-Holt, SirJohn


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, RtHon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Loveridge, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Luce, Richard


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert


Fell, Sir Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fisher, SirNigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney., Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Good lad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm ds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moate, Roger


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hastings, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom


Henderson, Barry
Nott, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Osborn, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas('Gr'th'm)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Howells, Geraint
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Hunt John(Ravensbourne)
Penhaligon, David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Percival, Sirlan


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pink, R. Bonner


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Porter, Barry


Johnston, Russell(Inverness)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lang, Ian
Renton, Tim





Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, CyrilD,(B'heath)


Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington, David


Scott, Nicholas
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)
Wakeham, John


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Waldegrave., Hon William


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Walker, B.(Perth)


Shepherd.Colin(Hereford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shepherd, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, John


Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)
Warren, Kenneth


Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Watson, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spence, John
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Sproat, Iain
Wickenden, Keith


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stainton, Keith
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Martin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)



Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas.J.
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Tapsell, Peter



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13

ACTIONS IN TORT AGAINST TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 14, line 27, leave out clauses 13 to 16.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 36, in page 15, leave out line 4.
Amendment No. 37, in page 15, leave out lines 40 to 43.
Amendment No. 58, in clause 14, page 16, leave out line 24 to 29 and insert—

'(a) £5,000, if the union has less than 5,000 members;
(b) £25,000, if it has 5,000 or more members but less than 25,000 members;
(c) £75,000, if it has 25,000 or more members but less than 100,000 members;
(d) £150,000, if it has 100,000 or more members but less than 300,000 members; and
(e) £250,000, if it has 300,000 or more members.'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 16, line 24, leave out from £10,000' to end of line 29.
Amendment No. 40, in page 16, line 30, leave out front `orders' to end of line 37 and insert
`vary the sum for the time being specified in subsection (3) above, but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.


Amendment No. 41, in clause 16, page 18, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Amendment No. 42, in page 18, leave out lines 11 and 12.
Amendment No. 43, in page 18, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 44, in page 18, leave out lines 20 to 28.
Amendment No. 45, in page 18, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
Amendment No. 46, in page 18, line 32, at end insert
'(5A) After subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection:—
(5A) A dispute between an employer's Association and any workers shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a trade dispute between workers and their employer notwithstanding that those workers have no actual dispute with their individual employer if the dispute relates to matters which cannot be settled otherwise than by agreement between representatives of those workers and the employer's Association.".

Mr. Radice: Clauses 13 to 16 go to the heart of the Bill and raise fundamental issues about the nature of trade unionism, about industrial relations and about relations between trade unions and the community. There are two key clauses, of which the first is clause 13 which repeals section 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. That gave trade unions and employers' associations immunity from action in tort. As a consequence of clause 13, trade unions and their funds will become liable to actions in court.
Clause 16 should be taken together with clause 13. It substantially restricts the definition of a trade dispute in section 29 of the 1974 Act. This widens the area for which trade unions would be liable under clause 13. Before I develop the case against the clauses, I should like to say a word about the issue of immunities.
7.45 pm
Ministers often talk very loosely as though trade unions were above the law. Of course, they are not. If they have any doubt, they have only to look at paragraph 34 of the Green Paper, "Trade Union Immunities", which makes it abundantly clear that in our system of law immunities are the equivalent of rights in other systems. What has happened is that under the British system of trade union law the trade unions have sought immunities to become free of the restrictions imposed by common law and by judicial decisions, under clause 4, that are clearly inappropriate to modern industrial relations.
As the Green Paper showed, industrial relations law in this country is a step by step development of statutory protection against common law liability. Trade unions do not have total immunity; it is inaccurate to say they have. Section 14 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act provides that trade unions can be sued for
any negligence, nuisance or breach of duty
in connection with property in respect of acts not
in contemplation or furtherance of a trades dispute".
Clause 13 goes well beyond that. It removes trade union immunities and so opens up their funds to actions in tort. We oppose this for a number of reasons. The first is what I call an historical, psychological, symbolical reason. The second is the practical consequence that they could lead

to internal dissension and disruption within the unions. Thirdly, they could substantially reduce trade union funds. Fourthly, they could damage industrial relations.
We discussed the historical background at some length in Committee. I shall not go over that ground, except to say that I think that there was agreement in Committee that the Taff Vale decision in 1901, when the House of Lords decided that a union could be sued for damages, was relevant to clauses 13 to 16. It was relevant for two reasons. First, it was then, for the first time, that union funds became liable for actions in tort—a situation reversed by the 1906 Act, which gave trade unions their present immunity. Secondly—and again I quote from the Green Paper:
The Taff Vale case has assumed a symbolic and psychological significance which is still very potent today. Trade unions have come to regard the House of Lords' decision as the moment when the whole development of the trade union movement was in greatest danger … The immunity … has acquired immense symbolic and psychological significance for the trade union movement so that the practical consequences of any change which put union funds at risk need to be weighed up very carefully.
There are some practical consequences that the Government have not taken into account, despite the fact that they have been warned by their Green Paper. They have not taken into account the threat to trade union funds. I know that, in contrast to the 1971–74 period, there is the limitation on damages as regards each single case. However, as the president of the Conservative trade union group, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), pointed out in Committee, this will still create difficulties for small unions. Secondly, £250,000 is a big sum for even the biggest unions when one considers that that could be for only one case and when one takes into account the costs. We all know that the costs are sometimes more than the damages themselves. There could also be fines arising out of contempt of court, although I do not advocate that.
It is inevitable that cases involving attacks on trade union funds will have an industrial relations impact. I speak with the experience of seeing the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 in operation. We can all remember what happened in the anonymous donor case in which the AUEW threatened a national strike. To many trade unionists, union funds are an emotive issue, particularly as the courts are also involved.
It may be said that damages will not often arise and that most employers will seek the making of an injunction. That is an inefficient and dangerous way of dealing with industrial relations problems. Using injunctions is not the way to proceed, but the Bill will encourage their use.
My final objection to the clauses is the issue of internal cohesion of trade unions. Ministers will say that we can avoid the problem if union executives say firmly where they stand. The Green Paper said that this is a complicated issue and involves the technical subject of vicarious liability. Many lawyers make a great deal of money explaining it in the courts. After the Heaton and GAS cases, the position on vicarious liability became confused. The Government say that they are producing a new formulation which avoids some of the difficulties. My understanding is that a union will be vicariously liable unless it has repudiated the actions complained of.
A number of questions immediately arise. What does "repudiation" mean? Do unions have to discipline officials and shop stewards? What does "union rules" mean? Does it mean simply the union rule book, or other documents


in possession of the union which may be important to the membership? The question of responsibility and liability is not just a technical one. As legislators we must ask ourselves whether the unions should be prepared to exercise this kind of authority and discipline over their members.
In Committee we quoted on numerous occasions the classic paragraph 122 of the Donovan report. I shall quote it again because Ministers do not seem to listen. It states:
Trade union leaders do exercise discipline from time to time, but they cannot be industry's policemen. They are democratic leaders in organisations in which the seat of power has almost always been close to the members.
If trade unions are to be made more authoritarian, the risk that that may be counter-productive must be taken. It could weaken the authority of the trade union leaders because they would be forced to discipline their members. They might be forced to expel them, which could lead to dissension and disruption in the union, and to splintering and break-away groups.
Such problems cannot be new to Ministers. I know that they have not bothered to read the Gennard report on the closed shop, despite the fact that the Bill is concerned with the closed shop. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he has not read the report, but I hope that he has read the Green Paper entitled "Trade Union Immunities". There is nothing new in what I say. It is all in the Green Paper which the Government should have looked at.
For the highly practical reason of internal union cohesion and to preserve good industrial relations as well as the psychological and symbolic reasons that have already been mentioned, we strongly oppose clause 13.
I wish to put the case for the Government on this issue. It would be helpful if I did that because the Government have not put forward a good case for themselves. They argue that they are only putting unions in the same position as individuals. They go on to say that we now live in a different world from the Taff Vale position because unions now have a wide variety of immunities which they could not be guaranteed after the Taff Vale decision in 1901. But the Government ignore the fact that they have been steadily chipping away the immunities ever since they were elected in 1979, thereby widening trade union liability. Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Employment Act 1980 removed immunities from most types of picketing and most types of secondary action. Clause 16 of the Bill further removes immunity by narrowing the definition of a trade dispute.
Although the definition of a political dispute is not mentioned in the Bill, it was mentioned in the Secretary of State's White Paper. The Secretary of State argues that political disputes have always been illegal and cannot understand what the Opposition are making a fuss about. We can turn that argument on its head. If it has been illegal, why are the Government bothering to introduce a new definition in the Bill?

Mr. Tebbit: Where in the Bill is there a definition, let alone a new definition, of a political strike?

Mr. Radice: I have just said that there was not a definition. Perhaps the Minister was not listening. By the use of the words "wholly or mainly", the Secretary of State is trying to exclude political strikes. He made that clear in his White Paper.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman said that I had introduced a new definition of a political strike. I have not,

and the Bill does not. The hon. Gentleman should understand that political strikes are unlawful today under the legislation which the Labour Government introduced.

Mr. Radice: If that is the case, why is the Secretary of State bothering to reintroduce the 1971 definition of "wholly or mainly"?

Mr. Tebbit: indicated dissent.

Mr. Radice: Paragraph 192 of the Green Paper points out that Lord Justice Roskill said:
Although the phrase 'political strike' has from time to tune been used in reported cases, it is to my mind a phrase which should be used, at any rate in a court of law, with considerable caution, for it does not readily lend itself to precise or accurate definition. It is all too easy for someone to talk of a strike as being a 'political strike' when what that person really means is that the object of the strike is something of which he as an individual subjectively disapproves.

Mr. Tebbit: indicated assent.

Mr. Radice: I am glad that the Secretary of State nods his head. That is an important advance because he was not pleased when we quoted that in Committee. It is an important point and I am glad that he takes it. The difficulty is that the Government are trying to change the definition by going on to this "wholly or mainly" issue.

Mr. Tebbit: indicated dissent.

Mr. Radice: Yes, the Government are trying to change the definition—

Mr. Tebbit: indicated dissent.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friends asked a number of questions about the definition of "wholly or mainly" in Committee. What that revealed was the difficulty that will arise about disputes in the public sector. Will it be possible to have strikes in, for example, the gas industry over the closure of gas showrooms? Will such disputes be "wholly or mainly" within the definition of a trade dispute? What about a dispute arising from public spending cuts or from the loss of jobs at the British Rail workshops in Shildon and Swindon?
8 pm
All those questions were asked and it became clear that the Minister who was answering—not the Secretary of State—had considerable difficulty in deciding whether those disputes would be allowed within the definition of section 29 of the 1974 Act. The difficulty is created by the new words "wholly or mainly". The judges must decide whether a dispute is wholly or mainly concerned with the issue and it could mean that they will be involved in the question of political strikes—against which they were warned by Lord Justice Roskill—and trade unions may object to an interpretation because they will say that the judges are biased. We all know what Winston Churchill said about judges and political bias. The Government have not considered the problem properly.
The definition of a trade dispute has been narrowed in three further areas. The first is worker versus worker, the second is employer versus workers who are not directly his employees, and the third is international solidarity in industrial action. It is rather difficult to know exactly what is meant in each of those points. Although the Minister who was in the Committee is a lawyer, he had some difficulty in explaining what is meant by the new


definitions, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, with his way of explaining matters simply, can come up with a definition. It would be helpful if he could do that.
It is clear that the Government are introducing in clause 16 a new range of restrictions which, added to the restrictions in the 1980 Act, considerably narrow the immunities that trade unions now possess. Further industrial relations legislation is promised by the Government, although perhaps not in this Session. Almost every Sunday we read about hints of new Bills promised by the Secretary of State. It may be pure press speculation, but I suspect that it has something to do with the Secretary of State.
Clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16 taken together are not modest clauses and this is not a modest measure introduced to correct an anomaly. On the contrary, it is a direct attack on the trade unions to appease the hard men in the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), whose judgment I respect, made a revealing comment. He knows about industrial relations and has followed the matters. On Second Reading he said that the Bill, especially the part that we are now discussing, is far-reaching. It is not a modest Bill at all and it could have a very considerable effect.
I must mention the behaviour of the Social Democratic Party on industrial relations because it is somewhat mystifying. I know that the vast majority of Members of that party, when they were Labour Members, voted determinedly against the 1980 Act, which is now considered to be far too modest by some Conservative Members. However, the majority of them voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, although it is true that some were against and some had doubts about it.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has just entered the Chamber because I was about to refer to him. I welcomed his presence on the Committee because I hoped that he could help us to understand the position of the Social Democrats on this issue. However, as my hon. Friends would agree, he did not do that. On clauses 13 to 16, from his reaction to remarks of mine and from the tone of his speech, I believed that we would carry him with us. However, when I examined the record afterwards, I found to my surprise that he voted with the Government on all the clauses that we are now debating, except clause 14, on which he abstained. The question that we are entitled to ask is, how serious are the Social Democrats about industrial relations and trade union reform? To us, their behaviour looks suspiciously like the courting of short-term popularity. I predict that they will come to regret their part in the passing of those clauses and the passing of the Bill.
What is so disturbing about the Bill—nowhere is it more apparent than in the clauses that we are now discussing—is the complete lack of interest in the improvement of industrial relations. There was almost no mention of the improvement of industrial relations in Committee. Instead, a series of industrial relations flash points have been created by the Government, any one of which could set back industrial relations for many years. We oppose the clauses, not just because they are based on a wrong approach to trade unionism and industrial relations but because they could set back industrial relations for a long time. I urge my hon. Friends to vote to delete clauses 13 to 16.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I wish to speak in favour of amendment No. 46, which seeks to ensure that a dispute between an employers' association and any workers shall be treated in the same way as a trade dispute between workers and an individual employer with regard to protection for employees taking industrial action.
The aim of the amendment is to clarify the position of groups of employees who could be placed in an anomalous position by the Bill as it now stands, which is not the intention of those who framed the measure. As such, I hope that the objective of the amendment may be viewed as non-contentious and may even be acceptable to the Secretary of State.
The amendment wishes to ensure that all workers acting in furtherance of their claims would be entitled to the protection afforded under section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. That is the broad intention of the Secretary of State. The present position in education is that, although teachers are the employees of local education authorities, no education authority has the power to reach an agreement on salaries and conditions with its employees but is bound by the majority decisions of the management panel within the Burnham committee. For example, the Inner London Education Authority could not reach an agreement with its teachers and pay them according to that agreement but must adhere to the decision reached by the majority of the management panel within the Burnham committee. That means that a local education authority could reach an agreement acceptable to its employees, or even support the case being advanced by its employees in full, but it would be unable to implement a settlement based on that unless it could persuade a majority of the management panel within the Burnham committee to agree.
In those circumstances the employees of such a local education authority would be in dispute not with their employers but with the management panel of the Burnham committee. Therefore, if the employees of such a local education authority, perhaps in response to a national decision of their trade union, took industrial action which would of necessity affect their immediate employers, could they be sure of the protection provided under section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974? Common sense surely dictates that they should and would be entitled to such protection. Unfortunately, judges' decisions are not always in accord with what the layman, or even the legislator, regards as common sense, as has recently been demonstrated.
One could envisage circumstances in which a parent or ratepayer took legal action, the objective of which would be to seek a judgment that such teachers were not in dispute with their employer and, consequently, were not entitled to the protection that they had taken for granted in taking industrial action. The aim of amendment No. 46 is to ensure that in no circumstances would teachers, or similar employees, be denied the protection that they anticipated in the conditions that I have postulated.
I am sure that the Government have no intention of removing protection from employees who are placed in the predicament that I have outlined. Therefore, I hope that they will accept the case for the amendment. I am not familiar with other groups of workers who might be in dispute with their immediate employer, but whose claims could be settled only by agreement with their employer's association, but I do not imagine that the teachers' case is unique.
I have fundamental objections to the Bill, but my present purpose is not to develop those. My objective is to point to an anomaly that I hope the Government will consider, and even, on the basis of their own objectives, seek to meet. If it is necessary to declare an interest, I make it clear that I am a member of the National Union of Teachers and have been so for more than a quarter of a century. I am pleased that my union is not in favour of the Bill's approach to industrial relations. However, the amendment does not attempt to raise the fundamental issues that are at stake. Therefore, I hope that the Government will recognise that it would be unfair for employees of an organisation that is not empowered to go against the wishes of a majority of employers to be vulnerable, while the employees of an organisation which retains the power to settle a claim individually in defiance of the views of a majority of members of an employer's association are protected. That would certainly not make sense and it is in that frame of mind that I ask—

Mr. Tebbit: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making plain that, while he has deep objections to the Bill, he is making a particular point here. I will come back to it in my reply, but I can assure him now that the point that he is anxious about is covered. I will explain that further later.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration of that matter. I am anxious that the matter should be aired clearly because, as he knows, once the Bill becomes law it is then for the judiciary to decide what exactly it means. In those circumstances, if the sort of case that I have suggested was brought by an individual, and a decision was given by the court that was completely unintended by hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, it would be particularly unfortunate. Some action should be taken to ensure that no such possibility arises. I and members of the National Union of Teachers will be only too happy if the Secretary of State can take some action, or give a reassurance that that is not his intention, so that we do not produce an Act that results in consequences that were not desired by any hon. Member.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) inquired why the Social Democrats' position on this aspect of the Bill was not clear. The whole of clauses 12 to 18 were dealt with in one single day in Committee and there was no time to look at these crucial clauses in anything like the adequate detail that they require. The House is now considering passing legislation that will have the greatest possible repercussions on industrial relations in Britain, and we are doing so by what anybody must describe as an inadequate examination of the matters that are involved in the Bill.
I have looked through the Committee reports and I do not think that some of the issues that have been raised on these clauses have been adequately answered by the Secretary of State. There was no time for him or his colleagues to give such answers. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us fuller answers to some of the matters that I wish to raise now.
There can be few clearer examples of ping-pong politics than these clauses. Once again we are seeing a swing of the pendulum in clauses 13 to 16—it is suggested that they should be taken out of the Bill—from the original Taff Vale judgment, to the Trade Disputes Act 1906, to

the subsequent changes made in 1927, 1946, 1971, 1974 and 1980, and now in 1982 we are seeing efforts to change industrial relations in a way that will unquestionably lead the Opposition to announce their intention to repeal such efforts yet again. That is one reason why we never make any constructive move forward in industrial relations.
The Secretary of State knows that the Employment Act 1980, which limited the protection of individuals against actions in tort with regard to secondary action, secondary picketing and industrial action to compel union membership—a relatively limited narrowing of the immunities of unions—has not led to many injunctions or cases being laid. The reason for that is simply that employers are reluctant to take such action in the tight of what they fear may be the reaction of trade unions. I hope that the Minister will explain why so few injunctions have been sought or actions taken under the terms of the 1980 limitation and why he considers it suitable to limit immunities still further.
Secondly, I ask him why he believes that it is wise to introduce a further limitation at a time when disputes have reached their lowest level for 40 years and are largely limited to the public sector, in which there are a small number of rather substantial strikes. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the number of days lost has declined to the level that was achieved at the time of the social contract in 1975–76, and is now at one of the lowest levels for many years.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) asked a question that was not dealt with fully and, therefore, it is appropriate to deal with it while speaking to the amendments. My hon. Friend asked why the Minister was not willing to consider whether the loss of immunity should be limited to instances where injunctions are sought by employers. The use of injunctions has been accepted by both sides of industry. There was, for example, the case of Duport Steel v. Sirs, which was the result of a strike that affected a private company. The injunction was brought by the private company, was recognised by the trade union, was complied with by the trade union and was subsequently set aside only when an appeal was taken to the House of Lords.
It is clear that unions are willing to accept the use of an injunction in the case of loss of immunity. Loss of immunity when no injunction is sought is a much less reliable legal remedy, but the Government have never offered a full explanation of why they intend to go ahead without the seeking of an injunction by the employer or some other affected party, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East sought to achieve in Committee.
When an injunction is brought, the court has to be satisfied that the terms and spirit of the limitation of immunities have been fully considered and taken into account. Therefore, I urge the Minister at least to explain why he felt unable to accept the amendment that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, which is now before the House as amendment No. 64, and which would bring the proposed legislation very much more within terms with which unions would be willing to comply than anything now embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Lady rightly says that few employers have used the law that is enshrined in the 1980 Act. They did not approve of it and they do not believe in


bringing the law into industrial relations. Surely she is not arguing that injuctions are a good way of conducting industrial relations.

Mrs. Williams: I am arguing that in cases where injunctions have been brought under the terms of the restrictive legislation set out in the 1980 Act, the unions have been willing to comply with the law. However, the clauses that we are discussing represent a wide opening of the doors to actions in which I do not believe employers will wish to enagage. The purpose of my remarks is to ascertain why the Secretary of State believes that the clauses, without amendment, will bring about any of the purposes that he purports to wish to achieve.
Under clause 14 the limits of the fines that are allowed to be charged to a union following an action in tort are so high as to be virtually punitive. Attempts were made by representatives of the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties in Committee to persuade the Government that such punitive damages made no sense if a serious attempt is being made to reform industrial relations as distinct from an attempt to try to break certain unions.
The understanding of my colleagues and myself is that unions will be liable to any number of different proceedings by any number of plaintiffs and that punitive damages may apply in many cases and not in only one. The multiplication of punitive damages could virtually eradicate any union funds apart from the limited number that the Bill excludes that ensue from action in tort.
If that is so, the Secretary of State must respond to what is bound to be the suspicion that he is not trying to improve industrial relations or attempting to introduce the concept of limited damaged in cases where he believes that a union has exceeded the limitations within the Bill. There is the suspicion that he is seeking to introduce provisions that will enable plaintiffs literally to break unions, in some cases without full information about the actions taken for them by a committee or by one union official. I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman devotes himself to that question when he replies to the debate.
Those of us who believe that there is room for some change in union immunities and some change in the reform of industrial relations are bound to be worried to the point where we cannot support the Government unless the Secretary of State's answer is much clearer than the one that he has given so far in defence of what appears to be a deliberate and punitive step in a highly sensitive area.

Mr. Leighton: In view of the formidable case that the right hon. Lady is making against the Bill, and bearing in mind that she voted against the 1980 Bill, will she indicate how she and her colleagues intend to vote on this obnoxious and repugnant Bill?

Mrs. Williams: We supported the Bill's Second Reading because we believed that crucial steps were required to be taken in respect of the closed shop. We have always been extremely doubtful about clauses 13 to 16. I shall advise my colleagues to vote to remove these clauses unless the right hon. Gentleman gives a much more adequate reply than any that he has given so far on the inclusion of clauses 13 to 16. As for Third Reading, I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the speech that will be made on behalf of the SDP on that occasion.

Mr. Greville Janner: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) has referred to ping-pong politics. I trust that when the next Labour Government are returned the contents of the Bill will be smashed out of existence. It is a nasty, unpleasant and unhelpful Bill that will only harm industrial relations.
The right hon. Lady's questions will be answered by the Minister when he replies to the debate, no doubt in his usual uncontentious fashion. The truth is that the answers are fairly simple. The Government believe that unions are too strong and that their strength should be weakened. They believe that management is too weak and that its powers should be strengthened. The Bill in general, and the clauses that we are considering in particular, are specifically designed to right what the Government wrongly regard as an imblance.
Management has not been afraid to initiate a few injunctions but, happily, some management is sufficiently enlightened to realise that the courts are poor places in which to sort out industrial relations disputes.
8.30 pm
The fact that the Government are sufficiently ill-advised to provide powers under which management may take unions to court does not mean that intelligent managers will accept that invitation, particularly when it means immediate chaos and enduring It will be an invitation to certain people to seek the sort of martyrdom which was renowned in the case of the Pentonville Five. Most management approaches industrial relations sensibly. The Government may bring in clauses to ban closed shops—as their predecessors did in 1971—but they will continue as before. That is not merely because unions believe it part of their freedom to retain them, but also because the vast majority of managements like them and prefer to work with them. They regard it as more efficient than working with a fragmented work force. The fact that the clauses give management power to take action against unions will not induce many of them to accept that extremely dangerous invitation.
If one examines why the clauses are brought in, the reason must be that the Government hope—either in the public sector where they have power, or by inducing less wise employers in the private sector—to attempt to break the trade union movement. The Government are sensible enough to recognise—as all Governments in free countries do—that the basic distinction between a free country and a totalitarian State is the right of individuals to withdraw their labour and to say "We are not prepared to work for you unless you pay what we regard as reasonable remuneration for our services".
It is precisely because Poland overstepped that particular brand of totalitarianism that the coup occurred. The danger is that in increasing restrictions on the right to engage in industrial action the Government are moving towards a position that I do not believe they want, where industrial action becomes a peril to those taking part, except for those who seek to be martyred as its result.
In clause 13 the basic position is a simple one. When anyone engages in industrial action he is almost invariably involved in a breach of contract, or he induces others to do so. The protection given by the law is necessary so that people who are individually weak may together have a power and firmness that ordinary working people do not otherwise achieve. Once that protection is removed they


are naked before the blast. That is no doubt a position that the Minister seeks. This clause will achieve that if it is put into operation.
The damages awarded against the unions are, as the right hon. Member for Crosby said, potentially punitive. The Government's memory is singularly short, because there were heavy fines on unions before. I recall that now great pillar of the establishment Lord Scanlon—in his previous incarnation as the terror of the Daily Mail—refusing to pay fines which were levied upon his union. There were some anonymous benefactors who forked out the money and saved the country from a complete shut down.
When unions as a whole are to be—to use the Minister's own term—clobbered, they react accordingly. Where unions are already hamstrung by recession there is no need to introduce the legislation. Its purpose is to prepare possible weapons for future use and to rally Conservative troops in a way that their other home policies singularly fail to do. It is a cosmetic Bill designed to achieve standing ovations for those who propose it at Conservative conferences in a way that no other home rallying call could possibly achieve.
The clause dealing with recovery of sums awarded simply makes it easier to get hold of union funds and is scarcely designed to achieve industrial harmony and peace. The limitation of the meaning of the words "trade dispute" is a disgrace. It means that many industrial disputes that will inevitably take place will be outside the protection of the law so that perfectly respectable and decent trade union people who would not normally wish to be beyond the pale of the law will find themselves in breach of it in a way that they did not want and which no one else wants.
The Bill propels law-abiding people into law breaking. That is very bad government. If one believes in the rule of the law, as I do, a Bill that deliberately invites the flouting of the law is as bad in the field of parliamentary business as the action of a parent who makes threats that he does not intend to carry out or who carries out threats that he should not have made. The whole Bill is intended to produce greater restrictions on the unions and is an invitation to law breaking. How can it possibly succeed? How can these clauses help? The first thing that they will not do is to restore one job.
The loss of strength by the unions has nothing to do with the 1980 Act or, at the moment, this Bill. It is the fact that union leaders cannot bring the troops behind them, even when their cause is entirely just, because people are terrified that they will join the long queue of the unemployed stretching from one end of the country to the other without a break even in cities such as Leicester which were once so prosperous.
When jobs are in peril, when there are several million people unemployed and when the number of people who have been made redundant over the years—many of whom have been re-employed—stretches towards 10 million, it is scarcely surprising that people dare not withdraw their labour. They are afraid of what will happen to them and to their families. It is a disastrous form of industrial relations for the Government to rely upon the sort of miseries that this Government have created and which the Bill will not mitigate by one iota or one jot.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill and these clauses are the worst part of it. They provide weapons for people whom even the Secretary of State would not wish to see use them.

They are a maverick's charter on one side and a martyr's invitation on the other. I believe that the House should reject the clauses while it still has a chance.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and also the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) have made such a massive case, on its merits, for the amendment by exposing the demerits of the four clauses that the amendment seek to remove that there is little need for me to add to their remarks. I propose to direct ray observations to a single, narrower, and rather precise point that arises on a later amendment that is not included in this group and that, almost certainly, due to the operation of the guillotine, will not be reached. It is precisely relevant to the four clauses now under discussion and would have been relevant to the two clauses whose existence hon. Members discussed in the previous debate.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to the vital question of the Minister's intention over the timing of the activation of the whole or parts of the Bill, including the timing of the activation of clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16. The intention of the amendment to which I have just referred was precisely to probe his intentions in this regard. We were left in a little confusion in the course of our proceedings in Committee, notwithstanding an effort made by the Secretary of State at our very last sitting, and in the last moments of the last sitting. It was slightly out of order because he was making a ministerial pronouncement in the course of thanking the Chairman of our Committee. However, we forgave him for that because we all agreed with what he was saying by way of thanks to that hon. Lady. But he did make a statement that purported to clarify some of the questions that had been left unanswered during the Committee proceedings in connection with the dates of activation of various—

Mr. Tebbit: I am just looking at the official record, at the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and to the paying of the tribute to the Chair. I must confess that I cannot immediately find the passage to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Mikardo: If the right hon. Gentleman will cast his eye back a little earlier in the report, he will find the passage to which I am referring. I am surprised that he paid so little attention to what he was saying at the time that he has now completely forgotten that he ever said it.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have not forgotten what I said but I sought to correct the hon. Gentleman who suggested that I had gone so far outside the limits of order as to discuss the merits of a Bill after the Committee stage had been concluded and during the formal procedure of paying tribute to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman should know me better than to think that I would be that far out of order, or that the Chair would allow it.

Mr. Mikardo: If I have done the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, I withdraw and I apologise. I am sure that that will make him very happy indeed. I would not go along with his remark that anyone who knows him well would know that he would never be out of order. That is totally contrary to the realities of life as we have experienced them in the years in which we have had dubious pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's company.
However, now that the wounded pride of the right hon. Gentleman has had a little salve applied to it, let us get back to the muttons. The right hon. Gentleman, right at the end of our proceedings, made a statement that purported to shed some light, if not on the darkness, at least on the penumbra of the preceding statement made by the Minister about the timetable for the implementation or the activation of various parts of the Bill.
The Bill as drafted provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, set down a date for implementation of the Bill or separate dates for implementation of different parts of the Bill. At a quite early stage in our proceedings, when we were debating the subject of union/management agreements, closed shops and all that, the Under-Secretary somewhat belatedly came up with the fact that some union/management agreements have a clause in them providing a term—sometimes quite a long term—of notice for any cancellation or amendment of them. It would not have been possible, therefore, to have had an immediate implementation of some of the provisions of the Bill.
When that was pointed out to the Under-Secretary, he said—I do not quote his exact words, but I think that I recall them correctly—that the intention was not to implement that part or those parts of the Bill for one year or two years. We were all a little taken aback by that. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) nods his head in agreement. He remembers it well. We pressed the matter, but we did not get much further. What was not clear then and is not clear now is which part or parts of the Bill were covered by the statement that the hon. and learned Gentleman made at that time.
8.45 pm
We therefore tabled an amendment to try to get elucidation. We did not move it in Committee, because, on reflection, we decided that it would be better to deal with the matter at this stage. It was because the matter was raised in general terms that the right hon. Gentleman made the statement to which I referred a little time ago, of which his recollection is apparently not as sharp as it should be. However, that statement did not throw any light on the matter. He said that some other parts of the Bill, not specified, would be activated as soon as possible—or words to that effect. That is about as precise as "How long is a piece of string?"
It is extremely important for the House to know, and it is extremely important for trade unions, employers and employers' organisations to know, at least roughly, when the various measures in the Bill, especially those in clauses 13 to 16, will be implemented, because they need notice. They need to prepare themselves. They need to take advice, including legal advice. Employers, as much as trade unions, will have to try to estimate how, in cases taken under these four clauses, the courts will react. We all know from experience over the past few years that in matters of industrial legislation the job of estimating how the courts will react is even more complex than the job of those pundits in the back pages of the newspapers who try to forecast eight draws in the football matches on a Saturday afternoon. It is a most imprecise and inexact science predicting how the courts will react on these matters.
Everyone will want to take advice—employers, trade unions, employers' organisations, and everyone who is

concerned, including management associations. We have seen how organisations of professional managers have taken a close interest in the Bill, much more than I recall with previous legislation in this connection. Nearly all of them are opposed to nearly all of the Bill. They have a job to do. They will have to live with their work force, unlike Ministers who sit there and call down diktats from the top of Mount Olympus. Working managers have to live with the consequences of the Bill and have to go on maintaining relations with the workers. They have to continue to get output and get the full co-operation of workers. They will want to know whether it will be six months, a year or two years, before they will have to face all the complications that will spread from the Bill as a whole and from these four clauses in particular.
When the Minister replies I hope that we shall have a little information—better than we have had so far—on the programme for activation. I have a hunch about it. If I am wrong, I look forward to being corrected by the Minister. My hunch is that no part of the Bill will be activated before the next general election. The Government have been taken aback by the huge opposition to the Bill. It may have been predictable that the trade unions would oppose it but I suspect that the Government did not anticipate opposition from employers and employers' organisations.
The Secretary of State may have a good giggle about this, but he will giggle on the other side of his face when employers' organisations complain about the trouble that he has caused in their industries. I know that he thinks the matter is funny but we are discussing the lifeblood of the country. It may be a joke to him but it matters a great deal to the 3 million people out of work. That also may be a joke to him but he is responsible for it, too. Let him laugh about that. He can get on his bike, take a deep breath and laugh about it.
The House is debating a serious issue. The Secretary of State cannot laugh it off. The trade unions are opposed to the Bill. Major employers are also opposed to it, or at least to some of its provisions. The overwhelming majority of management associations are opposed to it. Now even civil servants have come out against it. We have never witnessed that in Britain before. It is unprecedented. The chaps that he and his colleagues were dependent upon in Committee are opposed to it.
I have sat through many Committees in the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. I have never sat in one in which the flow of chits on bits of paper from advisers, sitting at the top table in the south-east corner of the Committee Room, were so continuous, voluminous and necessary as in the Committee stage of this Bill. There was one after another, as if on a conveyor belt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to clauses 13 to 16.

Mr. Mikardo: Those were the clauses on which the flow of paper was continuous. One conveyor belt, represented by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) who acts as Private Parliamentary Secretary, was adequate for most of the Bill, but another was necessary for this part. All the information on those pieces of paper was read with impeccable diction and, occasionally, with comprehension. Ministers were like ventriloquists' dummies, putting out words that were fed into them by


someone else. Now it seems that the chaps who wrote those bits of paper are opposed to the Bill. Everyone is opposed to it.
My suspicion about implementation is that, whatever the Secretary of State may want, some of his Cabinet colleagues will not be too pleased about the prospect of a winter of discontent, perhaps preceded or followed by a long, hot, summer, before the next general election. That is why I guess that there will be no implementation of any significant or worthwhile part of the Bill before the next general election. I shall be surprised if the Secretary of State tells me that I am wrong. I shall listen to him with my ears pinned back if he does, but I should be surprised.
Finally, I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should regard what we have been debating today as a suitable subject for mirth. There are many homes in this country where his sense of humour will not be shared.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that not only trade union organisations but industrial organisations and companies oppose the Bill. As the Secretary of State knows, the Co-operative movement with its experience of closed shops has said categorically that the legislation will be disadvantageous to industrial relations.
To call this an Employment Bill is a sick joke—as sick as the Secretary of State talking about his father cycling to the ordnance factory and the right hon. Gentleman telling the unemployed now to get on their bikes.
I wish to deal particularly with amendment No. 57, because I believe that clauses 13 to 16 will do a great deal to undermine the trade union movement in this country. The Bill is a major and unacceptable attack on trade union rights. The legal position of workers will be worse than at any time since the turn of the century. The Bill is worse than the industrial legislation passed by the previous Tory Government to curb the trade unions. Moreover, just as that legislation landed the country in industrial chaos, so I believe that the Bill is a recipe for grave industrial unrest in the years ahead.
As has been said, the tape shows that at the union conference being held today it has been said that the first time that this legislation leads to an industrial dispute it will call on the trade union movement in this country to support a general strike. That is the present state of affairs. The TUC has launched a vigorous campaign of opposition to the legislation. The Bill will soon receive its Third Reading and go on to another place. I hope that the TUC will increase its efforts to alert the 11 million or more trade unionists in this country to what the Government are doing. It is essential that the campaign should be supported and that effective resistance be mounted to prevent the Bill reaching the statute book and to resist its consequences if it should become—temporarily, like the previous Tory legislation—an Act of Parliament.
The Government's policies have been responsible for soaring unemployment, falling living standards, drastically reduced social services and slashed social security benefits. The attack on the trade union movement is an integral part of that strategy. These clauses are an integral part of a massive attack by the Government on the British trade union movement which has been accepted by successive Governments of all political persuasions as an important part of the lives of people in this country.
Therefore, I hope that the trade union movement outside will maintain its resistance if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. The only defence that working people have against the effect of the various other policies being pursued by the Government—the undermining of the Welfare State, the creation of 3 million unemployed and the attack on public industries—is a strong trade union movement. That is why the Government want to weaken it, because they know that it will resist the pernicious policies that they are pursuing.
The trade union movement has a long tradition in South Wales, and people there realise that it has played a great part in improving their living standards. At a miners' rally at the weekend, I spoke to some of the old miners who have devoted 25 or 30 years of their lives to doing a tremendous amount of work as lodge secretaries. They realise what the Government are doing in trying to weaken the only organisation that has given them some power to negotiate with employers. I do not speak with the experience in the trade union movement that many others have. But in my life I have been in touch with trade unions and as a Member of Parliament—I defy Conservative Members to deny this—I have found that when working people come to my surgery with problems in industry that they are unable to contend with they are not members of a trade union. If they are involved in an injury the employer will not deal with them. If they are given short notice, they cannot obtain redress to meet their grievance.

9 pm

Mr. Keith Wickenden: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is right, why is it that the area of the country with the highest productivity, the highest wages and the lowest union membership is the South-East?

Mr. Evans: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Stock Exchange belt. I do not see the point of that intervention. Even employers form their own associations. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's business, now involved in the present fiasco in the Falklands, is in an organisation. Is the hon. Gentleman a member of an employers' organisation?

Mr. Wickenden: No.

Mr. Evans: Most employers tend to be involved' in organisations.
It stands to reason that if individuals have to negotiate their working conditions with an unscrupulous employer they are in a far weaker position than if they collectively join a trade union. Unions have people who can advise on the best way of dealing with their problems. If employees are involved in a legal dispute with an employer, a trade union with a large membership can employ leading counsel to defend them. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot deal with an employee's case properly unless he is a member of a trade union. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is denying his employees the opportunity of joining a trade union?

Mr. Wickenden: If the trade unions have done so well for their members, why is it that the bottom 10 per cent. of the earning population of this country have exactly the same share of the gross national product as they did 100 years ago?

Mr. Evans: Because we have not had a Socialist Government long enough.

Mr. Radice: Most of the bottom 10 per cent are not in trade unions.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. The biggest group of exploited people in the country, the real lower band of wage earners, are those who do not join trade unions—part time workers, home workers, and so on.
Why are big business organisations and the Government so opposed to the trade union movement if the hon. Gentleman's argument is that a trade union member gets lower wages? Is the Secretary of State for Employment saying that he wants to reduce membership of trade unions because trade unions are holding back wages? That is nonsense. We know that working conditions have improved most in the leading industrial countries in the Western world with strong trade unions.

Mr. Wickenden: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. We shall only have a dialogue, and in any case he is strengthening my case.
The trade union movement has been a bastion of the defence of the interests of working people. In our surgeries we hear of the suffering that has been caused to individuals who are not members of a trade union. The purpose of the clauses that we are discussing is the weakening by the Government of the trade union movement.
There are problems in the trade union movement. They are problems not because the trade unions are too strong but because they are not strong enough. Parliament and a future Labour Government should see how we can strengthen that movement. It is because of the weakness of trade unions that there is lack of communication between employers and employees and unnecessary disputes. There would be more industrial disputes if there were industrial anarchy on the shop floor. We must ensure that strength is given to the trade unions.
Clause 14 states that the damages for which unions can be sued will be on a sliding scale with a maximum of £250,000 for unions with over 100,000 members. Clause 13 also refers to that matter. We wonder what effect that will have on the organisation of trade unions. I am a member of the TGWU. There are 1 million or more members in that union. Will that union be split into sections? Employers often disagree with having to negotiate with a large number of unions. If there is a small membership, there will be a small penalty. The larger the membership, the bigger the penalty. One wonders what the effect will be on trade union organisation.
The threat that such claims could be made by firms could make it impossible for unions to defend their members' interests properly. They might have to choose between being bankrupted or not taking action. In the last three years there have been massive bankruptcies and liquidations in the private sector. There are queues of people going into the bankruptcy courts. Will the trade unions now be bankrupted similarly? The proposals are designed to try to change the trade union movement from being a democratic organisation that exists to serve the interests of the mass membership into an industrial relations police force. We must resist clause 13 because of its effect on the trade union movement.
In clause 15 the definition will be restricted so that action should relate wholly or mainly to a trade dispute rather than simply be connected with it. The change in the

law is designed to create uncertainty and anxiety so that workers will be reluctant to take action to defend their conditions. The precise effect will depend on the judges.
I was at a meeting of a miners lodge on Saturday. I was asked whether I could name a Left-wing judge. Even if there had been one, I could not think of any names. Judges receive a salary of about £40,000. When they have interpreted the law in the past they have not been known to adopt trade union stances in their deliberations. In practice many disputes could fall foul of their interpretations. This is history repeating itself. We know what happened last time we had Tory legislation on trade unions. The Official Solicitor had to be brought in from goodness knows where.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Up to then we had never heard of him.

Mr. Evans: Indeed, we had never heard of him before. One learns many things when there is a Tory Government. The Official Solicitor emerged because we were heading for industrial chaos. The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) would be affected in his shipping business at that time. In practice, therefore, many disputes could fall foul of the judges' interpretation. For example, action against cuts in services such as hospitals or old people's homes or cuts in education services could all be unlawful.
The Bill is not even a curate's egg; it is bad in all parts and these clauses are particularly bad. I hope that we can minimise the extreme damage caused by the Secretary of State, who is undoubtedly a bitter opponent of the trade union movement although he was himself a member of BALPA. He knew that at that time it was in his interests to be a member but now he is trying to deny the same rights to working people.
We should be strengthening the trade union movement but this Bill, and these clauses in particular, weaken it. To take up the point of the hon. Member for Dorking, we should be trying to make those who are not in trade unions realise how important it is, in their own interests, to join trade unions. That is why, although this Government have put three million people on the dole queue, which has led to a reduction in union membership, I hope that the Bill will make the trade union movement realise that attack is the best form of defence. If we are to defend the rights of union members, we must throw out not this Bill but the Government as early as possible.

Mr. Renton: I had not intended to speak on this amendment because I have been out of the Chamber since I spoke some time ago. However, I have been so depressed by the blind and blinkered speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that I feel bound to make a few remarks.
The hon. Member speaks of the need for strong unions. I want strong unions, too.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Nonsense.

Mr. Renton: Of course I do—but I want responsible unions, democratic unions, unions that are accountable as well. Trade unions should be accountable to their own members, which is why I think we should have more secret ballots. I hope that we can discuss secret ballots later tonight. Above all, I want unions that are seen to be responsible, considering the tremendous influence that they have, and should have, today.
Thus, the sort of blinkered speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdare—which implies that everything is


right with the trade union movement, that nothing is wrong with it and that it needs no reform—gives hon. Members cause to despair about where the trade union movement is likely to go.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not say—the hon. Gentleman can read my speech in Hansard tomorrow—that the trade union movement had no need of reform. There could be changes. The hon. Member talks of secret ballots. Many trade unions have secret ballots; they are written into their constitution. We are saying that if the trade union movement is to be put right, it should do it itself, and the Government may help in putting it right. What we believe to be wrong is that this Government are proposing methods for reform which disadvantage the unions and will weaken them. That is what we will resist.

Mr. Renton: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Member has said. If we can get on to the new clauses later tonight, I very much hope that he will support my new clause which seeks to give trade unionists the right to ask for secret ballots in the election of national union officials.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aberdare is a trade unionist himself.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Yes.

Mr. Renton: He is. I am delighted to hear it. Labour Members who are trade unionists remind me of the definition of an Australian. For that reason I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has just entered the Chamber. It is always said that Australians are better balanced than the British because they have chips on both shoulders. That applies very well to Labour Members who are also trade unionists, but they should not have chips on their shoulders about the trade union movement.
Unions should be strong, but they should also be responsible, accountable and democratic. Like other hon. Members today, the hon. Member has tried to bring tears to our eyes at the prospect of poor little unions not being able to pay the civil damages to which clause 14 will make them liable if they are found guilty of authorising unlawful acts.
The hon. Member for Aberdare is far too intelligent to believe what he was saying and I suppose that the only reason that he said that was that he had read the TUC's speaking notes on "Fight Tebbit's law". I have those notes in my hand. Throughout the afternoon it has been instructive to see which points in the speaking notes have been taken up by which Labour Members. The section that the hon. Gentleman used as his cue for going on stage states:
Unions' funds are small. They will not be able to stand many bites into them by employers without facing bankruptcy.
That is a good arguing point, but fortunately we can balance it against the information published by the TUC only two days ago in its annual survey, which was reported in yesterday's edition of The Times. It shows that the affiliated unions now have assets amounting to over £250 million and an annual income of nearly £200 million. Therefore, they are not the sad pathetic little creatures that the speaking notes would have us believe.

Mr. Radice: That is only about £20 per member, which is not very much. I understand that the hon. Gentleman,

as president of the Conservative trade unionists, led a high-powered delegation to complain to the Secretary of State about the level of fines, particularly for small union.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that, because it enables me to move from the general to the particular and to make two specific points about the two clauses. The first concerns clause 13 and the question of vicarious liability established in that clause. In Committee, changes were made to the clause. At one stage the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo)—who is unfortunately not in his place—and I had our names down to the same amendments to the clause. That caused a stir among some of the national newspapers. They wondered whether there was a new unholy alliance between the hon. Gentleman and I. It would help if the Government explained the position of shop stewards, for example, when the Bill has been enacted. As unpaid union officials, will they have the power to authorise acts on behalf of the union? What will be the position as regards the repudiation of those acts? That is clearly an important issue.
In Committee, hon. Members on both sides said that the clause could lead to an increase in the number of unofficial strikes. That is a valid comment. The executive or emergency committee of a union such as the National and Local Government Officers Association—which., I believe, must authorise every strike action—would try to establish that strikes were unofficial to ensure that no compensation would be due from the union in the event of action. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that.
I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice). The Conservative trade unionists, of whom I have the honour to be president—[Interruption.] Mention of the Conservative trade unionists always produces an almost Pavlovian reaction from Opposition Members. It gives me some pleasure that it produces such a reaction. However, the organisation is growing and is successful. About 5 million trade union members voted Conservative at the last general election. About 40 per cent. of the membership of affiliated unions within the TUC voted Conservative. I hope to see that number increased at the next general election.
It is against that background that, as president of the Conservative trade unionists, I am proud to say that I and some other officers went to see the Secretary of State when the Green Paper was published. We made the point that we thought that the penalties and compensations for damages lay too heavily on the smaller unions. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Aberdare said, I think that that is still the case. The ratio should be altered so that the scale was not only attributed to the number of members in a union but had a relationship either to its assets or to its annual income—in fact, to its ability to pay.
If the hon. Member for Aberdare looks at some of the figures, he will find that the scale in clause 14 represents a higher percentage of annual income in a small union such as the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, for example, than it does of the annual income of the Transport and General Workers Union. In that case, although the maximum figure is £¼ million, it represents a much lower percentage of the annual income.
Also, the larger unions are better able to staff themselves and have paid union officials, some of whom may be lawyers, who will be able to ensure that the union


does not get into a position in which any claim can be brought against them. A smaller union might not have that ability, which is another reason why the scale in clause 14 should be reviewed, perhaps after the Bill has been law for a little while so that we can see how it works in practice.

Mr. Leighton: We all recognise the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) as a horny-handed son of toil and a leader of millions of trade unionists. Therefore, we are grateful to hear his words of wisdom and his guidance, and his claim that the fines are far too swingeing and should be reduced. In his representations—and perhaps he will have the ear of Ministers more than some of us—will he bear in mind that unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union are virtually amalgamations of unions with many sections? They could be involved in a multiple case, with the attendant legal costs, and could go bankrupt just as easily as the smaller unions, with which he has such great sympathy.

Mr. Renton: Obviously, the point of multiple cases is well known, and was made in Committee. However, there is every bit as much likelihood of multiple cases in a case against a small union. At the end of the day, the clause rests on staying within the law. These damages are only to be paid if a union official authorises illegal action. The definition and the scope for authorising legal action such as strikes and picketing is enormous.
Labour Members seem to forget that when the Bill becomes law unions in this country will still have greater powers and immunities than any other body in the country, except the Crown in Parliament. I do not object to that. I want powerful, strong unions but I want them to be strong, accountable and democratic. They should be accountable to their members and to the country.

Mr. Dixon: Earlier, an hon. Member said that the Bill had nothing to do with industrial relations. He was correct. If we could legislate for industrial relations the Secretary of State for Employment would come along with a one-clause Bill saying "That man should get up at half-past seven in the morning and start work, not finish work until the buzzer goes at five o'clock, never complain about working conditions and not worry about wages." Everything would be fine if we could legislate for industrial relations in that way. We should have the finest industrial relations in the world. Poland would have no problems now if it could legislate for industrial relations like that.
Unfortunately, Ministers do not understand what happens on the factory floor. I do not think that Ministers would know what a person in a boilersuit looked like, except for the fact that some character got up at the Tory Party conference two years ago wearing a boilersuit, saying that he had just come from a picket line or something like that. Millions of people go to work every day with no problem other than earning their living and making sure that they have reasonable pay and conditions.
In Committee, Ministers seem to believe that workers get up in the morning and that when they have their cup of coffee or, if they are in Scotland, their porridge, they are exercising their minds as to how best they can disrupt British industry. That is not correct. The Secretary of State seems to believe that workers wish to subvert industry and cause as many problems as possible. That is not true.

Those who are allowed to go to work—it is fewer every day that the Government are in power—wish only to do their work.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, that clause 13 undermines the authority of trade union officials. At line 41, it says
but only if it was authorised or endorsed by a responsible person.
People do not take industrial action lightly. If, when they send for a full-time official it will result in the employer taking the trade union to court and attacking its funds, the members will not send for a trade union official. But it will not stop them taking action. If they wish to take action, they will. The unofficial shop stewards committees, which were rife in Britain some time ago, will sprout up again. The Secretary of State says that unions should have more discipline over their members, but this clause will have the reverse effect.
Many years ago I was a shop steward in the shipyards. When we had a dispute the men used to ask me not to send for a trade union official because he would tell them that they must work according to the agreement that had been signed at the district office. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that.
Many Conservative Members do not understand trade union funds. They believe that they are talking about the money in the back pockets of a dozen or so general secretaries. But what they are talking about is money that men and women have paid as union contributions, which have been built up into funds to look after their employment interests and to educate them. That is the reason why clause 13 will ensure that any future action, if the Bill ever gets on the statute book, will be unofficial action. If the Secretary of State wishes that and wishes to undermine the authority of trade union executive members and general secretaries, this is precisely how to do it. He will not get the so-called discipline for which he calls.
Clause 15 could have an effect on the International Transport Workers Federation if it tries to obtain reasonable wages for those who work on ships that fly flags of convenience. The clause will inhibit any action that it could take or any action that it could get trade unions in Britain to take to achieve even minimum earnings. Some of the seafarers who sail on flag of convenience ships do so for board only and receive no wages. When they are recruited in their countries they sign pieces of paper which say that they will accept the terms of employment. The International Transport Workers Federation has received many millions of pounds for those sailors who have been exploited under flags of convenience.
9.30 pm
This group of clauses is the worst group in the Bill. the Bill is possibly the worst Bill from the Government to date. The Government have introduced some bad legislation since 1979. When the Government refer to step by step trade union legislation they mean putting the boot into the trade union movement. The first boot was clause 6 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, which deprived the dependants of strikers of supplementary benefit.
The Employment Act 1980 was the second boot. The Government then created more than 3 million unemployed in Britain. That is the climate in which the Bill is introduced. It is only in that climate that the Government would dare to introduce such a Bill.

Mr. Neale: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). We both served on the Standing Committee of the Bill and he, among all Opposition Members of the Committee, spoke with great passion and with great knowledge of the trade union movement. He sought to discuss certain clauses—some Conservative members of the Committee thought at far too great a length in the early stages—at the expense of being able to debate properly the clauses before us today.
It emerged in Committee that Conservative Members feel that legislation could be introduced to make those on both sides of industry work more harmoniously, but we know full well that we cannot legislate to do that.
We believe that there are certain elements not of industrial relations but of industrial disruption. There are elements of trade union power which go beyond what is fair and just. It is those elements that the Bill seeks to cover. Nothing that I heard in the many hours of debate in Standing Committee, on Second Reading or in the debate today has changed my view. I favour the introduction of these clauses inasmuch as they begin to bring the unions within the law and to make them more accountable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is no longer in the Chamber, claimed that a great number of organisations across the United Kingdom were opposed to the Bill. I believe that he totally overstated the case. There are some organisations which are opposed to it, as there would be to any legislation, but a great number of organisations are in favour. Many hon. Members, and certainly I, feel that the Bill is a welcome step in the Government's step by step approach, but that it does not go far enough.

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman said that he was speaking for himself. He is a lawyer and we all know what lawyers think. Does he agree that the Engineering Employers Federation, a major employers organisation, is against the provisions on the closed shop?

Mr. Neale: On the hon. Gentleman's implication about lawyers, may I say, speaking as a lawyer, that if the sort of terms and conditions laid down by statute, affecting the way in which consumers are protected from lawyers' actions, applied to the trade union movement as a whole, many people would feel happier about trade unions.
The Engineering Employers Federation does indeed have reservations about elements of the closed shop law, but it also has a strong view that some elements could be included in the Bill which are not, including lay-off clauses in the event of selective strikes within a member company and in other industries.

Mr. Flannery: This is not an exercise in semantics across the Chamber. We are talking about three clauses that are so brutal and draconian that the whole of the trade union movement is planning to combat them. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that last Sunday morning the entire trade union movement of South Yorkshire, including the great coalfield, had a meeting in Sheffield at which Mr. Scargill spoke? It pledged itself to fight the Bill tooth and nail and began a massive fund to do so. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we are talking about such a monstrous provocation to the trade union movement that if the clauses are violated by the movement, as they will be, some people will have to be put in jail, which will

require a thousand Official Solicitors because the struggle will be so massive and intense that there will be a general strike?

Mr. Neale: I know that the hon. Gentleman has deeply held reservations about the Bill. He expresses them on every occasion, and I know that he can claim to speak for others in those reservations. However, he must ask himself who are the people expressing the opposition. They may be the leaders of trade unions or senior officials within those unions, but how many of those leaders and officials have balloted their members to see what the depth of feeling is about these measures?
If the hon. Gentleman cares to go to the Library and look out all the occasions on which people have been balloted in any poll concerning trade union membership, he will find that there is an overwhelming majority in favour of these measures.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Neale: I must continue because I have already given way once.
Democracy cannot operate satisfactorily if one group, namely the trade union movement, has legal immunities which no other group has, and seeks to obtain a degree of subservience from other groups to its main aims, ignoring the damage which it can inflict on those other groups.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to the fact that I am a lawyer. The unions are immune from many actions relating to defamation. Why should that be? Why should they and nobody else have that immunity? The Bill limits the total amount of damages that can be paid. It is not just trade unions that have finite resources. All other companies and institutions have finite resources. Many have members making payments. There are friendly societies of one kind or another liable to unlimited damages. They are all subject to the law. In this case the trade union movement is not, and there is no logical or factual justification for that to continue to apply to the trade union movement.
No one can pretend that the trade union movement has the same tasks to perform in 1982 as it had in 1906 and before. Unions are now far larger and there are fewer of them. There are industry-wide unions and company links with unions. There are many new technological aids in industry. It may be the lawyer in me, but I cannot understand the case for immunising the trade union movement against irresponsible action, which is the only action that will be dealt with by the Bill. A wide element of legitimate union action will remain available to enable unions to further the case of their members.
There is considerable power within the trade union movement and it can be used to disrupt or to improve. It can be used, for example, to improve pension funds and to invest or it can used to bankrupt companies. Unions have the power to lead their membership and improve industries and they have a power similarly to misuse their strength.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. I accept that there are many and recurring examples of trade unions that behave responsibly and contribute to their industries and the rights of their members, but there are other examples, such as upholding the right to strike, where action is not confined to withdrawing the labour of individual members of unions. The right to strike has become almost a right of siege. It seems that it has to be


carried to the limit to ensure that the case of the individual union member is taken beyond all good sense and judgment.
On another major issue Labour Members have been vocal in imploring the Government to pay far greater heed to the role of the United Nations. I am sure that some Labour Members have examined the various charters of rights that have emerged from the United Nations, many of which have been repeated at European level. They will know that they contain interesting statements on the rights of individuals within trade unions. One example is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which states that it is the right of everyone to join a trade union. It adds:
and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restriction shall be placed on the exercise of that right"—
I suggest that Labour Members consider the range of the United Nations charters—
other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.
It is that responsibility which the trade union movement has in part not discharged to other organisations and to others who do not wish to be part of the movement. It has fallen short of meeting that responsibility and it is that shortcoming that has brought Bills of this sort before the House.

Mr. David Winnick: There is one feature of the hon. Gentleman's argument that I do not understand. If a person has a conscientious reason for not wishing to join a trade union—for example, the fact that he is a Jehovah's witness—there has never been any difficulty. That is a reason that has been met on many occasions. It is more than likely that the person concerned will be asked to make a donation to a charity. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the resentment of those who join a union, make their financial contribution to it and, as a result of their membership, assist the union in successfully negotiating reductions in working hours and wage increases? These trade unionists want to know why others who do not pay subscriptions to the union receive all the benefits that are achieved by the union.
9.45 pm
There is hardly a case where a non-trade unionist, no matter how he goes on about his rights, says to management "Those are increases and benefits that have been negotiated by the union of which I am not a member and because of that fact I will not have anything to do with them." The truth is that the non-unionist is willing to take all the benefits without paying a penny towards the union that has negotiated the increase.

Mr. Neale: I am quite certain that there are occasions when that happens. If in a company there is someone who is not a member of a trade union and who does not wish to become one, that would be sufficient. He may say that he can do that only on grounds of conscientious objection. In either of those circumstances the individual employee might see a way in which he can work harder, be more productive and in fact earn more doing his job than under the arrangement that the union has struck with the employer—If he does that he immediately creates

disruption. The union presumably is embarrassed because it has someone in its midst who is not a member willing to produce more and work longer hours and do various things which would give him better pay. Then we have the problems that the Bill seeks to cover.
I have some hesitation in saying this after the Secretary of State's experience with the bicycle, but my father was in that position. He had to leave his job because he was willing to produce more and get better rates than the union people.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member is putting the classic case for non-trade unionism. The strength of working people—although I shall not persuade the hon. Gentleman because clearly he has pronounced political views, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have—certainly in large establishments, rests on their collective power. The average person working for a large company has no power on his own. He cannot possibly have against remote management.
Trade union strength comes when working people at a given place combine. That organisation is constantly undermined by the type of person who wants to take all the benefits without paying any contribution towards the union—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that we are discussing clauses 15 and 16.

Mr. Neale: The critical point about immunities is that if one looks at the legal justification for applying the law to all forms of institution—whether they be a trade union or anything else—one finds the same argument applied in 1930, 1940, 1960 and 1980. It is no different now from what it was then. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that in 1980 the Government felt that we should not go along the road of those immunities as we are doing now.
He asked why, if it was right then, it is wrong now. The fact is that there was exactly the same underlying belief, certainly on the Conservative Benches, backed by a substantial number of people in the country, that the level of immunity of the trade union movement was wrong and unjust and that it had to be made more accountable. The changes were not introduced, I believe, for two reasons. The first was the level of baying and protests from some union leaders that cowed people into feeling that reductions of immunity should perhaps not be introduced. The second was that too many cowardly noises from management made it appear that there was not the national will for change.
I believe that such a will now exists and that it is growing. It is also to the credit of the trade union movement that a far greater degree of reality exists among union members and leaders. There are, of course, exceptions. But there are also exceptions in management. This greater sense of reality has produced collaboration and improved industrial relations. There is, however, still the feeling among many people that the immunity of the movement from secret ballots and immunity from being accountable to the membership is wrong. The same feeling applies about the immunity from holding ballots on such issues as the election of union officers and immunity from selective action which means that employees can be rendered without work but that they still have to be paid


by companies in a way that gradually places a financial stranglehold on companies and reduces their viability and security of employment.
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly but urge that my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, should consider consulting on the widest level with both sides of industry about further measures that have been mentioned during the debate and in Standing Committee with a view to introducing another Bill at an early date.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I support the amendments to clause 13 relating to actions in tort against trade unions. I shall refer first, however, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) to the effect that trade unions should be responsible. The definition of "responsible" can be subjective. I believe that responsible unions are those that fight hard for their members and achieve the best possible return through negotiations or other means of collective bargaining with which the Conservative Party agree and which it upheld in its election manifesto. Responsible trade unions are those that pursue free collective bargaining. If, at the end, there is need for a show of strength, so be it. That is what is meant by responsible trade unions according to the Tory party definition. I agree totally.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex also referred to ballots. There is nothing wrong with ballots so long as individual trade unions agree with them. I do not think that they should be foisted upon us by the State. My union, the National Union of Mineworkers, has a very moderate president called Arthur Scargill. Arthur is not opposed to ballots. I give the assurance that when we do not get what we desire in November and a ballot takes place the miners will support the executive. Any strike will be brought about by the actions of this Tory Government. Once a strike is in progress it is the most dangerous thing that one can have. How does one get the miners back? If there is a strike after a ballot which has been legally enforced, one can only get the strikers back by a ballot that has also to be legally enforced.
May I talk briefly about my own union? If the union gets all that it may desire through negotiations, Arthur Scargill will not be able to say to his men that they should return to work on Monday and get the coal coming out again. There would have to be a postal ballot which will take a week to operate and another week's production will be lost—not because of the trade union movement but because of the law of the land. That will be the result of enforced ballots. One cannot legislate in depth for industrial relations. That will be the embarrassment; if the Government decide to throw down the gauntlet, my union will pick it up. The result will be anybody's guess but it will not be very nice.
That is the position with ballots. I have been involved with them over many years and I would not push too hard on ballots.
The clause makes it unlawful to strike in respect of things that happen in foreign countries. Such strikes might be vital. Many tears have been shed—some may suspect crocodile tears—about the situation in Poland. What would happen if the miners in Gliwice which I have visited—I went down the mines in Gliwice only four years ago and very good mines they are—were exporting coal to our country against our wishes? What if we said that we did not want that, that it was forced labour in Poland, undermining everything? Would we strike? If we were to

strike in favour of the workers in Poland, would the Government support us? I sometimes think that they will not because this law will not allow it. Let us he careful with our tears for Poland and the working class and trade unionists of Poland. Let us have tears by all means, but let them be sincere and not crocodile tears. That is vital.
This Bill also allows for judicial interpretation. Why, if we want good industrial relations, do we have to go to the judiciary? Why do lawyers cream off the money from industrial problems? What is wrong with tribunals being agreed between unions and management? Why should we always have a legal man in the chair? It does not happen in other countries; why should it happen here? If we like industrial relations to be smooth, as I like them to be—my comrades rarely come out on strike; sometimes we go a whole week without a strike—there is no reason why important problems cannot be solved by a selected group of senior trade unionists and management who may not be directly involved. Why do we have to go to the Lord Dennings, who always come out against us? We are engaged in a class war.
Instead of using the law of tort, it would have been better if the Minister had come forward with some progressive thinking on industrial relations, as they have in other countries. There, management and men get together to stop industrial disputes and ensure smooth running, from which everyone benefits. I am afraid that on that issue we shall have to wait for a Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) referred to flags of convenience.

Mr. Winnick: What happened to the 1974 Act?

Mr. Welsh: I have always opposed flags of convenience because all workers are brothers. Although all hon. Members here may be classed as brothers, in the practice of the House I accept that we call them hon. Members. All trade unionists are brothers, but few could be called that on the Conservative Benches.
Many ships which fly flags of convenience have few British men on board. They have mostly people from the Third world countries, and safety on board leaves much to be desired. What would be the position, under the law of tort if, for safety reasons alone and for no personal gain, the workers or British sailors on board a flag of convenience ship went on strike? Would they be allowed under the law of tort to sue British sailors when the only purpose of the strike was to save their brothers' and sisters' lives? This is a serious matter.

10 pm

Mr. Michael Martin: My hon. Friend will be aware that no British Merchant Navy ship is allowed to sail without a non-asbestos insulation. In other words, there is no asbestos in the bulkheads or any part of the ship, for safety reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely unfair if British sailors were forced to sail in foreign ships which were not covered by such legislation, and the union was sued because they refused to sail in such ships?

Mr. Welsh: That is a good point. If sailors do not sail, for reasons of safety alone, can we be charged with implementing legislation which may cause death or serious injury, when the unions involved in that industry


cannot strike for safety's sake? It is important to realise that we are legislating for things that happen overseas or on ships flying flags of convenience.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman point to the part of the Bill which worries him about British seamen being forced to sail in unsafe ships?

Mr. Harold Walker: Yes.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman might care to send his hon. Friend a note. He will have a hard job in finding such a provision, because there is no such provision in the Bill.

Mr. Welsh: If that is an assurance from the Minister, I accept it. Let us hope that when the sailors come out on strike, they will be able to quote the Minister and that no action will be taken against them. They will be able to call the Minister as a witness in court. I have nothing against that, and I am grateful for the Minister's intervention to confirm that if the lads take this action on board ship they will not be prosecuted under this legislation.
The other important issue involved in the law of tort is the unlawful industrial action which is authorised or endorsed by different members. It may not be parliamentary to say so, but in my language that is daft. There are chargemen in pits who are not elected to that position by the trade union movement. The lads at the face elect them because they know about the work and they are responsible, along with the deputy, for the lads' safety. All colliery walkouts are led by chargemen, who may not even go to union meetings. That does not matter one iota. The provision says that they have to have some status in the trade union movement, but chargemen do not have that status. Strikes can be brought about by chargemen who are not involved in trade union activity. That will do nothing to improve industrial relations.
My last point concerns damages. My union could be sued several times for £250,000, as could any union as big as mine. But the National Union of Mineworkers makes it plain—I am not looking for a fight between myself and the Minister or between the Conservative Party and the Opposition—that no one will take away the hard-earned money that mineworkers have paid to their union. They work too hard for it. They will not allow legislation to take it off them.
There was a NUM meeeting in Sheffield on Sunday. The President is a moderate man—Arthur Scargill. He is probably the most moderate trade union leader about. He has been president of the Yorkshire miners for 10 years, during which time there has never been a strike.

Mr. Neale: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to explain to members of the NUM that the legislation will not automatically take money from the union membership or the union funds as he, perhaps unintentionally, implied? Will he also explain to the members for whom he is responsible the scope of action that is still available to the NUM without liabilities or damages under the Bill?

Mr. Welsh: Yes, I shall explain everything to my constituents. They are well aware of the fact. I have had at least four meetings with my miners. I do not mind a ballot, but not one miner will be in favour of the legislation. If the miners, for various reasons, come out in support of the nurses because of the terribly small sum that

is being offered to them, and the National Coal Board wanted to sue them under the law of tort, no money from the NUM would be forthcoming. Someone might then be sent to gaol.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The feeling that the hon. Gentleman finds among miners is not the same as that which I find among my constituents, although my constituency is heavily industrial.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) speaks as a member of the employing classes.

Mr. Smith: No hon. Member has knocked on more doors in the past few weeks than I. I have addressed public meetings in at least 12 constituencies. Not once, during canvassing for the local elections or during public meetings, have I been asked about the Employment Bill. I have canvassed on council estates. No one, during all that time, has asked me what is happening with the Employment Bill or has said that he is opposed to it.
My views on the Employment Bill are well known in my constituency. I have expressed them in articles in the local press and I have spoken in public about the matter. I have made them absolutely clear. Yet in the local elections in Rochdale last week, my party polled 45 per cent. of the vote as against 32 per cent. for Labour and 23 per cent. for the Conservatives. I accept that feelings may be different in Sheffield or among the miners that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) represents but there is no such feeling in my constituency. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up about.

Mr. Welsh: If what I am saying is the definition of getting worked up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman never comes to one of our strike meetings.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Rochdale goes to Rotary clubs. He is just an entertianer now and makes more money at it than the Minister.

Mr. Welsh: I assume that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was flying the flag for the Liberal Party only in the local elections. I fail to see the relationship between the present legislation and local issues such as emptying dustbins. Surely it is Liberal philosophy just to debate small, local issues. In fact, they have a different policy for every ward.

Mr. Winnick: Was not the same argument used by Tories and Liberals about the 1971 legislation? When that legislation was before the House, we warned them what would happen, but their response was the same. They said that they had knocked on doors but that nobody was interested and they had been asked no questions about it.
Is my hon. Friend aware that Apex, whose leadership is moderate even by media standards, after a two-hour debate at its conference last weekend, unanimously passed a resolution condemning every aspect of what it described as the vicious nature of the Tebbit Bill?

Mr. Welsh: Yes, and I suppose that the people who passed that resolution also pay rates and vote in local elections, so it is strange that at its first conference this year there should be so much interest in people who pay local rates and vote just like everyone else.

Mr. Winnick: And they do not like the Tebbit Bill.

Mr. Welsh: I am not one of the many who believe that this will have to be fought in the factories and the mines


of this country. I should not like to see that because I do not like strikes. I believe that strike action should be taken only when it is vitally necessary. But if the Government try to take hard-earned money from the NUM, whether it is in contempt of court or not, that will be enough to cause a dispute and for the NUM and other unions to fight. Arthur Scargill has said that he is prepared to go to gaol if necessary.

Mr. Wickenden: That is exactly what he said to the Select Committee on Employment in relation to the 1980 Act. As always, his words were a great deal louder than his deeds and he has done nothing about it at all.

Mr. Welsh: That Act has not yet had time to be worked on. We fought that legislation strongly, but one would have thought that it would be given time to develop so that we could see the consequences before more legislation was thrust upon this great country for the industrial workers to suffer again.
What I am saying is plain and simple. I wrap no wool about it. If it is decided that members' money is to be taken away from them, whether there is contempt of court or whatever, the NUM and other trade unions will not tolerate that. The Government will then have lost the opportunity to make a good industrial relations measure which would have helped the nation—it needs help tremendously—management and workers alike. The Government will have lost that opportunity by courting what may be a great catastrophe in the near future. Therefore, I ask Conservative Members to support the reasonable and rational amendments proposed by the Opposition.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) made some interesting comments. I would not disagree with some of them. He said that fighting for their members was the purpose of trade unions and that this should be done through free collective bargaining. I would not disagree with that. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else seriously believes that that can be done without any parameters at all.
If there were no restrictions whatever and no holds barred, I suggest that the employees would suffer far more than the employers. It is surely right that the job of trade unions is to look after the best interests of their members. Sadly, in recent times that has not been what trade unions have been noted for, or why they have made the headlines. The hon. Member for Don Valley told us about a gentleman who is a moderate and a splendid chap. I hardly think that that image is one supported by the British public, particularly in areas not directly related to the best interests of members of the National Union of Mineworkers. That gentleman has got himself embroiled on the political stage, as so many trade union leaders have done. It is an interesting stage, all the more so if people can get on it without having to stand for Parliament.

Mr. Welsh: Would the hon. Gentleman say that politicians are getting involved in the industrial scene and in relations between employer and employee, which they should not be doing?

Mr. Walker: I hope to answer that more fully if the hon. Gentleman will give me time to develop my speech.
I see organised labour as an essential part—I emphasise the word "essential"—of the balance in the employment

market. If there were no balance, one side would exploit the other. There is no doubt about that. The real problems in industrial relations in Britain today are historical. It has been properly said many times in our debates that to get the balance light we must look at the question of good human relations. One of the reasons for including these clauses in the Bill is that in recent years the balance has been tilted too far one way. Equally, it would be bad for industrial relations if the balance were tilted too far the other way. The job of Government—this is where in part I am answering the hon. Member for Don Valley—is to find a balance that will give the best results in any given circumstances.
We must find a way that will deter trade unions from using muscle against innocent parties. That is an essential part of Government. It is the Government's job to protect the majority of citizens from any group, whether unscrupulous persons, bad employers or badly organised trade unions. I refer to trade unions that are badly operated generally, and in the way they elect their active members.
I understand the anxieties of trade union members who feel that they may be seeing part of trade union funds being used as compensation for irresponsible actions.

Mr. Winnick: Part of the responsibility of Government is to act where necessary—referring to the hon. Gentleman's party—against bad employers. My union was involved in the Grunwick dispute. Long before any mass picketing, employees were denied the elementary right to belong to a union and to have that union recognised by the management at Grunwick. I am not aware of a single Conservative Member who, during 1976 or 1977, took up the case of the workers. What happened, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, is that the prime Minister in particular made a great hero of the employer who refused to give working people the right to belong to a trade union.

Mr. Walker: It is unfortunate for the hon. Gentleman that he chose a dispute that does not help his case. If one wanted to look for a weak case that would be it. The majority of the actual operatives in the company did not want to be registered under the clauses relevant at that time. The problem at Grunwick was common to so many other places. It was being created not by the people inside but from outwith to within. That was proven by the number of people who continued to work in the company under those extremely difficult circumstances. They were difficult circumstances for the inoffensive people who had to be bussed in.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Walker: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not need any lessons from him on the Grunwick dispute. I had a similar dispute in one of the companies that I ran at that time. It did not make the headlines. There was a dispute not because I did not want my people to be members of a trade union but because I was not prepared to recognise one trade union as the sole bargaining union on site. There was a good reason for that. There were five other unions on site. It was nonsense to suggest that a sole bargaining union would be in the best interests of all the employees.
That dispute was resolved amicably through sensible trade union practice and good officials coming in and getting the people who had got in difficulties out of those


difficulties. That often happens. It happens more often than we can tell from the headlines. The majority of trade union activists and officials are responsible people, but unfortunately some are irresponsible and behave irresponsibly. Because they behave irresponsibly and because innocent parties are affected, they cannot be allowed to continue to operate outside the law. The clauses deal with that matter.
All Conservative Members accept that organised labour is an essential part of the balance in the industrial and employment market. Many people have said that the Bill will do nothing for industrial relations. unless I have misread the Bill, it is called the Employment Bill. It is concerned primarily with the practices in the employment market. Not all those practices are connected directly with industrial relations. Often they affect third and fourth parties. Employers properly are subject to laws to protect employees from irresponsible and bad employers. That is important.
I could give an illustration of a bad employer. I did so in Committee and it was not well received by Opposition Members. I shall give that illustration again because the Dundee Labour Party was a shocking employer. It employed individuals for a news-sheet called the Dundee Standard.  It did not pay the trade union rates. Consequently there were problems. That was not surprising. Of all people not to be paying trade union rates, who would have thought it would be that assorted bunch of people who called themselves the Dundee Labour Party?
I do not believe that the majority of people who vote Labour in Dundee would support the view by that group of individuals, who were shocking employers and tried to exploit people. They did not pay the NUJ rates. They did not pay the rates for the people on the production side. I give that illustration to show that all bad employers are not Tories. All bad employers are bad employers regardless of their political affiliations. Trade unions must also be subject to laws.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the few people in the House who understands trade unions.

Mr. Hamilton: Bearing in mind that the Dundee city councillors were bad employers, will the hon. Gentleman recognise that at the regional elections the Labour candidates in Dundee won handsomely?

Mr. Walker: I wish I could support that view, but Tayside as a whole

Mr. Hamilton: I am talking about Dundee.

Mr. Walker: I shall deal with Dundee. The hon. Gentleman is good on industrial relations and he understands the trade unions, but I hope that he will do his sums for Dundee a little more carefully. If he does, he will find that the Conservative vote has increased. Where we have been returning councillors, we have returned them with increased majorities. I could cite an example in which the Labour Party came not second, not third but fourth in

a city in which it normally comes second. It came fourth, because its old friends, now called the Social Democrats, pinched some of the votes.
Trade unions must also be subject to laws to protect individuals, employees and employers from irresponsible and damaging action by bad trade union practices. That is why the measure is so important. There has been a demand for changes in the law—[interruption] I am sorry about the comments that are being made. It reminds me that someone said that the Bill had nothing to do with local authorities. That comment obviously came from an hon. Member who had not spent any time in Committee. If he had, he would have known that we spent hours talking about the problems of local authority employment. We discussed the introduction of political action into an area that should primarily be concerned with good employer/ employee relations. The situation has been damaged by such political intervention.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) probably received no comments because for some time the people have been asking for something like the Bill to be put on the statute book. That is the result of the abuses of recent years. Every Parliament will rightly introduce laws if the public sees abuse—whether they are the abuses of employers, corporations, those selling goods and products and providing services or the abuses arising from bad trade union practices. There has been a demand for the balance to be redressed. The balance has been tilted too far one way.

Mr. Crowther: If a company secretly decides to close a factory, virtually forces trade unionists in the factory to strike over a pay dispute, and then issues dismissal notices to avoid making people redundant, is that not an abuse? The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I described such an occurrence.

Mr. Walker: I clearly remember the hon. Gentleman mentioning that. I am not here to defend bad employment practices or bad employers. In my career I have had to fight bad employers and—

Mr. Cryer: Now the hon. Gentleman is fighting for them with the Bill.

Mr. Walker: I have been an active trade union official. The hon. Gentleman does not know that. I probably know as much as he does about dealing with bad employers. Bad practices cannot be excused simply because those involved are on one's side. That is not good enough. The problem is that we try to push people into given positions, to remain there, come what may. I have been in the House for a short time, but I have always voted with my conscience and will continue to do so.

Mr. Cryer: With the Tories.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that I have voted against the Government on several occasions. We were not sent to Parliament to be the puppets of some obscure outside outfit—whether that outfit be the National Union of Mineworkers or, in my case, some employers' organisation. Within the limits of my very limited ability I have tried to do the best that I could. I never doubted that the world was full of people who were abler and cleverer that I. However, they were rarely my employers or my superiors in the trade union movement. It was because of that that I occasionally


rebelled and made it obvious to my superiors in the trade union, or to my employers, that I did not agree with them, and thought that they had got it wrong.
10.30 pm
The Committee stage of the Bill was interesting. We heard some fascinating views and I must be complimentary to those who understand something about trade unions and industrial relations. Many wise comments came from both sides of the Committee. If those who jeer and think that we do not care read the reports of the Committee proceedings, they will realise that there were people on both sides who were genuinely concerned to debate properly. What disturbed me was the rather obscure points that were made simply to fill in time. That was disastrous because it meant that we did not fully debate the Bill as it should have been debated.

Mr. Tebbit: It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), who debates these matters not only with a great depth of experience, but in his usual robust style. It was interesting that, in commenting on the support in the country for the Bill and these clauses, he made the point of the recent local elections and the great increase in support that had come to the Conservative Party in recent times.
That rather jelled with something that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said. As I understood it, the Liberal Party in Rochdale had a considerable success. The hon. Gentleman made the point that nobody he canvassed criticised the Bill or raised it as an issue with him. That may be a lesson not just for the House in general, but particularly for the hon. Gentleman's Social Democratic allies. They were distinctly less robust in their attitude to the Bill, split three ways on Second Reading, and did not seem to do nearly as well as the Liberals in the recent local elections. Perhaps they should consider their position carefully on Third Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire was on his usual good form and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) was on his usual form. Once again, the hon. Gentleman showed that he did not understand the Bill, that, in particular, he did not understand clause 11, and that he does not understand vicarious liability. He got it wrong in Committee and he has got it wrong again.

Mr. Radice: Clause 13.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry, clause 13. The hon. Member does not understand how the clause works.
The basic rules on liability are clear in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that it is clearly set out there that there are those whose actions can automatically and irrevocably commit the union. They include "the principal executive committee", any person or committee empowered to call industrial action by the rules of the union, and its top officials. The second type of person is covered by subsection (3) and is mentioned in paragraphs (d) and (e). They are, in paragraph (d), the middle ranking and junior employed officials such as the regional secretary or the district organiser and in paragraph (e) the committee to which such officials regularly report—for example, the district secretary to the district committee, or the regional secretary to the regional committee.
These categories of people and committees are presumed, under subsection (3), to make the union liable unless under subsection (4) they are
prevented by the rules from authorising or endorsing
industrial action, or their action
has been repudiated by the principal executive committee or by the president or general secretary.
The position could scarcely be more clear, nor more frequently misunderstood by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. Not only is it clear, but it is reasonable.
The rules are not based on some remote idea that trade union organisations are centrally manned, and that they are great powerful organisations where, if the general secretary flicks his fingers, people move all the way down the line. We know that it is not like that. The rules are firmly based on the reality of trade union organisation.
The union is to be held liable only for the actions of those employed officials and committees which are fully within the official structure of the trade union. The union is not presumed liable for unlawful action by lay officials such as shop stewards, or by its members, unless someone within the official union hierarchy has authorised or endorsed their action or unless the rules give these lay officials specific powers to authorise industrial action.
The clause makes it plain that the final say about union liability lies with the national executive of the union and its most senior officials by giving them the authority to repudiate the action of lower ranking committees and officials.
The clause leaves scope for the union to specify in its own rules who should have the authority to call industrial action. Under subsection (3), the union is always presumed to be liable for action authorised or endorsed by its principal executive committee or its most senior officials. That would appear to be reasonable.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State will recall that one matter of controversy in Committee concerned the problem that might arise if the president or the general secretary of a union who cannot be repudiated by the executive, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman described accurately, happened to be a Member of the House of Commons. That has frequently been the case and, I believe, is currently the case. If a Member of the House who is a general secretary or president of his union were, by a speech in the Chamber or by action or words in Chamber, to endorse or appear to have endorsed the action of his members taking industrial action outside, could those words be invoked against him in the courts? Would he, by his words in the House, be deemed to have endorsed that action? How would that be reconciled with parliamentary privilege?

Mr. Tebbit: The matter is perfectly clear. In the case of the Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith in 1972, it was held that what was said or done in Parliament in the course of proceedings may not be examined for the purpose of supporting a cause of action itself arising out of something done outside. These rights of the House are emphasised by a resolution in 1818 which directs that
no clerk of the House or officer of the House, or shorthand writer employed to take minutes of evidence before the House, or any of its Committees, shall give evidence elsewhere, in respect of any proceedings or examination had at the bar, or before any Committee of the House without the special leave of the House.


I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of that. Everyone is familiar with the Session of 1818. One thinks of almost nothing else all day long.
Clause 13 leaves the final say about union liability with the national executive of the union and its most senior officials by giving them authority to repudiate the action of those lower ranking committees and officials to which I have referred. It leaves scope for the union to specify in its own rules who should have the authority to call industrial action. Under subsection (3) the union is always to be presumed liable for action which has been authorised or endorsed by its principal executive committee or by its most senior officials. It is worth restating that because it needs to be made clear and it is perfectly logical.
Apart from that, it is open to the union to decide in its rules whether officials and committees should have the authority to call official action. Provided that those rules are clear, they will be paramount in deciding whether a trade union is to be held liable. The claim that clause 13 is unrealistic and takes no account of how unions operate can hardly be upheld.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not possible to abolish industrial action by legislation? If he is saying that it cannot be organised by the official leadership and that it must repudiate any such action, he is saying that, to be lawful, all industrial action must be unofficial. He is putting a great premium on unofficial action, which is a recipe for industrial anarchy. That will be the major result of his legislation.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood matters once again. Whether action is lawful or unlawful does not and cannot depend upon whether it is official or unofficial, and vice versa. Those matters are not connected. If action is unlawful and it is endorsed, supported, procured or authorised by the trade union, the trade union may become liable. If it is not so endorsed the position would not be dissimilar to that which it is today where only the individuals who organise and take part in the action would be liable. That is not a difference between lawful and unlawful action or between—

Mr. Leighton: They may go to prison.

Mr. Tebbit: It is possible today for someone to fight his way to prison for such a trivial matter as, for example, refusing to abate a nuisance that he is causing to his neighbour and persistently refusing to obey a court injunction. People have gone to gaol for failure to send their children to school. That is possible under existing law, and under law initiated by the Labour Government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tebbit: Of course. How could I resist?

Mr. Lewis: Why talk about schools? Why cannot we talk about the case of the five dockers who went to prison? Then the Official Solicitor dug up some new law and they were released.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had managed to be in the Chamber earlier today, he would have heard that matter discussed. I suggest that he reads the Official Report.
Under the legislation for which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East voted, it is possible for someone to go to gaol if he insists. But what is important about this

Bill is that, whereas at the moment one can proceed only against an individual, in future one will be able to proceed against the union.

Mr. Leighton: The moral of the story is that the official leadership of the union must distance itself in future from all industrial action if the union's funds are not to be endangered. The leaders must keep out and leave it to be an unofficial strike.

Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because it enables me once again to say that he has got it wrong. If a union supports lawful industrial action, its funds cannot be at risk. If it chooses to support unlawful industrial action, its funds may be at risk.
10.45 pm
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that unions should support action that is unlawful even today. He asks "How do we know what is lawful?" How does a company know what is lawful before it acts? How does the hon. Gentleman know whether what he is doing outside is lawful? He has to understand and think carefully before he harms or damages some other person.
I hope that I have cleared up the problems that have been troubling the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and can now move on to those that have been troubling the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). I can understand her concern about ping-pong politics. I only wish that at times she and her colleagues would engage in the game of ping-pong, tennis, or whatever it is that we play, instead of contracting out. For example, I notice that on the first Division eight Liberals supported the Government and on the second seven did so. On the first Division none of the Social Democrats supported us and on the second two voted against us. First, the Social Democrats should have taken some part in the proceedings, and, secondly, they might have been a little more consistent towards their allies as well as their principles.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the attempts that we made to table amendments reflecting the views of the Social Democrats and Liberals were consistently not called and we were not given time to debate the matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for that.

Mr. Tebbit: If the right hon. Lady and her colleagues could not find amendments that the Chair thought suitable to be called, that is a matter for her, not for me. I am surprised that she should say that.
The right hon. Lady complained that when the clauses were discussed in Committee there was too little time to discuss them. I must tell her that that evening, as on many others, although the time limit under the timetable motion would have allowed the Committee to run on until 11 o'clock at night, on that occasion the Committee finished at 7.40 pm. Clearly the members of the Committee thought that they had had ample time to discuss the matter.
The right hon. Lady also made great play about ping-pong politics and her claim that trade union immunities, which is what we are discussing this evening, had been ping-ponged back and forth since the 1906 Act. She mentioned the 1927 Act and the 1965 Act, and so on, right the way through to the 1980 Act. I must tell her that the only Act that affected trade union immunities was the 1906


Act, after which the trade union immunities remained completely unchanged until the 1971 Act following which they were broadly returned to their original state by the last Labour Government. The other Acts that the right hon. Lady mentioned in her litany, trying to portray instability, were totally irrelevant and had nothing to do with trade union immunities.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that an Act passed to repeal an earlier Act in 1971, followed by an Act to repeal that in 1974, followed by an Act to repeal that in 1982, is ping-pong politics? It sounds very like it to me.

Mr Tebbit: The right hon. Lady is still a little muddled. She is including in this matter such Acts as the 1980 Act, which did not affect trade union immunities. [Interruption.] One still could not sue a trade union. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is getting muddled. He spent so much time listening to the right hon. Lady's views when she was in his party and out on the Grunwick picket line that he falls back into the habit of it. He should cure himself.

Mr. Crowther: The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted some dates accurately. Does he realise—I am sure that he does—that what he has just said means that the Government are now about to change the rights that trade unions have enjoyed for 72 out of the last 76 years?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall change the privileges that they have enjoyed at the expense of those whose rights have been abridged.
The right hon. Lady harped on again about whether one should have to seek an injunction against a trade union before being in a position to sue the union for damages. If she reflects upon the issue, she will realise that the amendment is defective in principle—I do not cavil at that because it is not easy for those without the resources of parliamentary draftsmen and advisers to get these things right—because it would remove the main incentive for trade unions to act within the law.
The normal principle of law is that a person who acts unlawfully is liable for damages that result from the moment that he takes unlawful action. Therefore, he should think carefully before he takes action about the likely consequences that may follow and the chances of legal proceedings. If the amendment were accepted, even in principle, there would be no such incentive for a union to think before it acted. There would be an invitation for unions to chance their arm with unlawful action in the knowledge that they had nothing to fear unless and until somebody sought and gained an injunction against them.
There may be cases where the action is extremely damaging but of short duration. The employer would not have time to get the injunction and then proceed. He would therefore be unable to obtain damages but damage would have been done to him. I cannot think that the right hon. Lady, when she considers the matter more maturely, will decide that she wants to continue on that route.
I follow the line of concern of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) about teachers. I do not think that amendment No. 46 would help him, but I do not take issue with him over that because I understand his anxiety. I am informed—I have to say that because the hon. Gentleman raised the issue in a way which went slightly beyond what I had expected from the amendment—that section 29(2)

of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 is meant to cover teachers. It allows teachers to be in dispute with a Minister of the Crown when their terms and conditions of employment are settled by a joint body such as the Burnham committee, on which the Minister is represented. There is no problem. The section and subsection were inserted in the Act to cover the case that the hon. Gentleman envisages and I am advised that it would so do. I am willing to assure him that I shall reconsider the issue tomorrow to be as certain as I can that what I have been told is correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked whether shop stewards and others can authorise industrial action. I think that I have already covered that question, as I have official and unofficial strikes. The limits on liability of trades unions that are within the Bill are a luxury that are not enjoyed by anybody else. It does not matter to the victim who has been hurt whether he has been hurt by a small union or by a large one. His concern is redress, and that means that others should think carefully before they act.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister said that immunities are not enjoyed by any other body. Does he recall that a few weeks ago he and his fellow Conservatives voted for the Lloyd's Bill which gives absolute immunity to the council of Lloyd's from any kind of action? Is it not true that there are double standards?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is completely and absolutely wrong in what he says. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) did not raise any issue of either relevance or importance in his speech. He asked about clause 18, which is not concerned with the amendments that we are debating. I refer him again to columns 1321 and 1322 of the Official Report of Standing Committee G which cover the point that concerns him.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West ( Mr. Janner) is responsible for the production of one of the most comprehensive compendiums on industrial relations law, which is to the best of my belief an entirely factual guide—so nobody should worry about reading it. They will not be put off by any of the views he expressed tonight that had nothing at all to do with facts.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) talked about official and unofficial strikes. I have covered that point. To my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) I say that the Engineering Employers Federation supports the Bill, as do all the employers' federations. 'The CBI, for example, said that I had got it just about right. The EEF wants the Bill toughened up by the introduction of lay-off clauses, and its only reservation is that it does not put action to protect workers against the excesses of the closed shop as high on its list of priorities as I do. That is the only difference between us.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) had entirely wrapped his mind around the subject. There are no proposals in the Bill to enforce strike ballots. There is no need to get into the courts. There is no restriction on the ability of management and employees to negotiate and settle their own grievances. I noted the way that he harked back to the harmonious industrial relations under the Labour Government during the winter of 1978–79 when everybody was taking industrial action to obtain more wages for nurses. Any action workers


might take in support of strikes in Poland would be unlawful under the law enacted by the Government that he supported.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street rightly said that trade unions had been given exemption from the common law. They have to a great extent. He mentioned a few areas where they do not have immunity, but he did not mention those where they have. I remind the House of some of the areas of immunity. Trade unions are immune from actions for tort involving interference with contracts, libel, defamation, negligence, nuisance or breach of duty, regardless of whether the union is acting in furtherance of a trade dispute or not. Under the Bill trade unions will become liable for interference with contracts where they are responsible for industrial action that is outside a trade dispute. They will be liable if they organise unlawful secondary picketing or secondary action of any other description. The clauses make the trade unions liable for actions that are unlawful for the individual.

Mr. Cryer: What about the Lloyd's council?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) still does not understand the Bill. If he understood the Lloyd's Bill, he would know that it protects members from actions against each other within the community of Lloyd's. It does not protect them against action by outsiders. That is the fundamental difference between us. The hon. Gentleman wants to maintain the rights, if that is the correct word, of trades unions to libel, defame, harm, obstruct and break contracts in defiance of the law. No one else, except a small minority of people in the country does. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 307.

Division No. 155]
[11 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Allaun, Frank
Cohen, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cook, Robin F.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Crawshaw, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN);
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Deakins, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dewar, Donald


Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn &amp; P)
Dixon, Donald


Campbell, Ian
Dobson, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Canavan, Dennis
Dubs, Alfred


Cant, R. B.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Cartwright, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.





Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Martin, M (G'gowS'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, MissJoan


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ford, Ben
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foulkes, George
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ogden, Eric


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Halloran, Michael


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Graham, Ted
Park, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Race, Reg


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Richardson, Jo


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Horam, John
Robertson, George


Hoyle, Douglas
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Janner, HonGreville
Rowlands, Ted


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ryman, John


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)
Sever, John


John, Brynmor
Sheerman, Barry


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Short, Mrs Renée


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Neil
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Lamborn, Harry
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ronald
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Straw, Jack


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tilley, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


McKelvey, William
Torney, Tom


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


McMahon, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McNamara, Kevin
Watkins, David


McTaggart, Robert
Weetch, Ken


McWilliam, John
Wellbeloved, James


Magee, Bryan
Welsh, Michael






White, Frank R.
Winnick, David


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Woodall, Alec


Whitehead, Phillip
Woolmer, Kenneth


Whitlock, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton E)


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Dr. Edmond Marshall.


Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)



Wilson, William (C'try SE)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Denshore


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert (Preston)
Elliott, Sir William


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beith, A. J.
Farr, John


Bendall, Vivian
Fell, Sir Anthony


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Best, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Freud, Clement


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brotherton, Michael
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Greenway, Harry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, E (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'thN)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian


Burden, Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Hannam, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hooson, Tom


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howells, Geraint


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Penhaligon, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, Barry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Tim


Latham, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rossi, Hugh


Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Luce, Richard
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson. M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Antony
Speller, Tony


Marshal, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Sproat, Iain


Mawby, Ray
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stainton, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Mellor, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Martin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B. (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Osborn, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Watson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)






Wheeler, John
Wilkinson, John


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Williams. D. (Montgomery)


Whitney, Raymond
Winterton, Nicholas


Wickenden, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Question accordingly negatived

Younger, Rt Hon George



Tellers for the Noes: 



Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.

Employment Bill

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order [20 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments moved by a member of the Government to that part of the Bill to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 17

POWER TO ALTER BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 19, line 7, leave out clause 17.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 24, leave out lines 5 to 13.

No. 52, in page 28, line 31, leave out from `appropriate)"' to end of line 32—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 29, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert—



'Section 119(17).'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 215.

Division No. 156]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Antony


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick


Aspinwall, Jack
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Butcher, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Beith, A. J.
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon. W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Best, Keith
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, john
Cope, John


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Body, Richard
Corrie, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Costain, Sir Albert


Boscawen, HonRobert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brinton, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Dover, Denshore





du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lee, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Luce, Richard


Faith, MrsSheila
Lyell, Nicholas


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert


Fell, Sir Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
McNair-Wilson. M (N'bury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Freud, Clement
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshal, Michael(Arundel)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, HonA.
Moore, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Cranley


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hooson, Tom
Osborn, John


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howells, Geraint
Parris, Matthew


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Penhaligon, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, Barry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.






Renton, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhodes James, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shepherd, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, John


Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Stradling Thomas. J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crowther, Stan


Adams, Allen
Cryer, Bob


Allaun, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, N(H'gey)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bagier, Gordon A. T 
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Hugh D,(Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Duffy, A. E. P. 


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunnett, Jack


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G, 


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Eadie, Alex


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
English, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cant, R. B. 
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, John (Newton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Faulds, Andrew


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Field, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan


Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. 
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cook, Robin F, 
Ford, Ben


Cowans, Harry
Forrester, John


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Foulkes, George





Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Palmer, Arthur


George, Bruce
Park, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Ted
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hardy, Peter
Race, Reg


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Holland. S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Homewood, William
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hooley, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sever, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, HonGreville
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Short, Mrs Renée


John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tilley, John


McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKelvey, William
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McMahon, Andrew
Watkins, David


McNamara, Kevin
Weetch, Ken


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
White, Frank R.


Marks, Kenneth
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Martin M(G'gow S'burn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (BoltonE)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Mr. George Morton and Dr. Edmund Marshall.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick



Newens, Stanley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendement proposed: No. 68, in page 29, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—
'Section 3.


In section 4(4)(b), the words from "in accordance with" to "Schedule 13".
In section 5, the proviso.
Section 7.'.—[Mr. David Hunt]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:  Ayes 307, Noes 217.

Division No. 157]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Faith, MrsSheila


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Farr, John


Banks, Robert
Fell, Sir Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Beith, A. J.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas(A'don,)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Griffiths, E. (By St. Edm 'ds)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, HonA.


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hastings, Stephen


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney


Churchill, W. S.
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Cope, John
Hooson, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Rt Hon D(G'ldf'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howells, Geraint


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Crouch, David
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Denshore
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith





Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Tim


Latham, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rossi, Hugh


Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Luce, Richard
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shelton, William(Streatharn)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, (Rochdale)


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Antony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Sproat, Iain


Mawby, Ray
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stainton, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Mellor, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Stevens, Martin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil (IlordSouth)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B. (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Osborn, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Watson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Penhaligon, David
Wheeler, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Pink, R. Bonner
Wickenden, Keith


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John






Williams, D. (Montgomery)



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Young, Sir George (Acton)



Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John


Adams, Allen
Foulkes, George


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
George, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Graham, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Homewood, William


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hoyle, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Neil


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamborn, Harry


Cunningham, G.  (Islington S)
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
McMahon, Andrew


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland





Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, AW.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stoddart, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tilley, John


Race, Reg
Tinn, James


Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Richardson, Jo
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Roberts, Allan(Bootle)
Watkins, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
White, Frank R.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Rooker, J. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Whitlock, William


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Short, Mrs Renée
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Silverman, Julius
Young, David (BoltonE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Dr. Edmund Marshall and Mr. Allen McKay.


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Business Committee recommended to the House that one precious hour, at the end of today's proceedings between eleven o'clock and midnight, should be devoted to discussing new clauses and schedules of the Bill. The House, at the beginning of its proceedings this afternoon approved the Business Committee's report without a vote. The Business Committee is a representative body on which members of the official Opposition sit. Yet the official Opposition now, by insisting on voting on purely technical amendments, are ensuring that the wishes of the Committee are thwarted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I think that I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, I am bound by the resolution agreed by the House today and must proceed accordingly.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue of major principle before the House was felt by the Business Committee to be one that should be debated in the House. Can we ask you to protect the House from the abuse of its procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the terms of the resolution passed today, and I must get on with the procedure.

Amendment proposed: No. 69, in page 29, line 31, column 3, at end insert—





'In section 73(3)(a) and (b), the words "which consists wholly of weeks".'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 215.

Division No. 158]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Reginald


Atkin, Robert (PrestonN)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Farr, John


Banks, Robert
Fell, Sir Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Beith, A. J.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Best, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freud, Clement


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grist, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, HonA.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hastings, Stephen


Carlisle, Kenneth (Luton west)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Colvin, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howells, Geraint


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith





Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pollock, Alexander


Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine
Porter, Barry


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Knox, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Latham, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Lee, John
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp;W'loo)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh


Lyell, Nicholas
Rost, Peter


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Royle, Sir Anthony


Mc Crindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)
Shepherd, Richard


McQuarrie, Albert
Silvester, Fred


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Major, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marland, Paul
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Marlow, Antony
Speed, Keith


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speller, Tony


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Spence, John


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)


Mawby, Ray
Sproat Iain


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Miller Hal (B'grove)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Martin


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Tapsell, Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon Wi11iam


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B. (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Osborn, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Penhaligon, David
Wheeler, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Pink, R. Bonner
Wickenden, Keith






Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wilkinson, John



Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wolfson, Mark



Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Adams, Allen
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Graham, Ted


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Home Robertson, John


Browrn, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Homewood, William


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Hon Greville


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kerr, Russell


Conlan, Bernard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Kinnock, Neil


Cowans, Harry
Lambie, David


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lamborn, Harry


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McElhone, Frank


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dobson, Frank
McMahon, Andrew


Dormand, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Dubs, Alfred
McTaggart, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian


Field, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forrester, John
Morton, George


Foulkes, George
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland





Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stoddart, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tilley, John


Race, Reg
Tinn, James


Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Richardson, Jo
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Roberts, Allan(Bootle)
Watkins, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
White, Frank R.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Rooker, J. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Whitlock, William


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Short, Mrs Renée
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Silverman, Julius
Young, David (Bolton E)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Ioan Evans and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 70, in page 29, line 38, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 81(4), the words from "excluding any week". onwards.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 204.

Division No. 159]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Brotherton, Michael


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n,)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Banks, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony


Beith, A. J.
Budgen, Nick


Bendall, Vivian
Bulmer, Esmond


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Butcher, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John(Luton West)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Body, Richard
Clark, Hon A.(Plym'S'n)






Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cockeram, Eric
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby


Costain, Sir Albert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lamont, Norman


Dover, Denshore
Lang, Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lee, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lyell, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert


Fell, Sir Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Freud, Clement
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Antony


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon A.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hawksley, Warren
Myles, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)





Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Parris, Matthew
Stanley, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Pawsey, James
Stevens, Martin


Penhaligon, David
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, Barry
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald


Rathbone, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, B. (Perth)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rossi, Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rost, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Royle, Sir Anthony
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Scott, Nicholas
Watson, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard
Wickenden, Keith


Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Squire, Robin



Stainton, Keith





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley


Adams, Allen
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin F.


Ashton, Joe
Cowans, Harry


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crowther, Stan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Donald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dobson, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dormand, Jack


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dubs, Alfred


Canavan, Dennis
Duffy, A. E. P.


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack


Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie, Alex


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Eastham, Ken


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh 're)






English, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ewing, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
Newens, Stanley


Field, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Palmer, Arthur


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Pendry, Tom


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Prescott, John


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


George, Bruce
Race, Reg


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Radice, Giles


Golding, John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Graham, Ted
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Allan(Bootle)


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ryman, John


Homewood, William
Sever, John


Hooley, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Janner, Hon Greville
Silverman, Julius


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lambie, David
Stoddart, David


Lamborn, Harry
Stott, Roger


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Litherland, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tilley, John


Lyon, Alexander(York)
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McKelvey, William
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Michael


McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R.


McTaggart, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


McWilliam, John
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Winnick, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Woodall, Alec


Maxton, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Maynard, Miss Joan
Young, David (Bolton E)


Meacher, Michael



Mikardo, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. George Morton and Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

Queston accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No 71 in page 29, line 41, column 3 at end insert—




'Section 143.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 1.

Division No. 160]
[12.07am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Alexander, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gorst, John


Ancram, Michael
Gow, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Gray, Hamish


Aspinwall, Jack
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Grist, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Banks, Robert
Hamilton, HonA.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Beith, A. J.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hawksley, Warren


Best, Keith
Hayhoe, Barney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Heddle, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, John
Hicks, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hooson, Tom


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bowden, Andrew
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jessel, Toby


Braine, Sir Bernard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brinton, Tim
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knox, David


Brotherton, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Sc'n)
Lang, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Antony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Lee, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butcher, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Luce, Richard


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lyell, Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, John


Cockeram, Eric
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Colvin, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Cope, John
McNair-Wilson. M. (N'bury)


Corrie, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Cranborne, Viscount
McQuarrie, Albert


Crawshaw, Richard
Madel, David


Crouch, David
Major, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Marland, Paul


Dormand, Jack
Marlow, Antony


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Dover, Denshore
Mates, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Patrick


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mellor, David


Eggar, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Monro, Sir Hector


Fox, Marcus
Moore, John


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mudd, David






Murphy, Christopher
Stainton, Keith


Myles, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neale, Gerrard
Stanley, John


Needham, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Newton, Tony
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Tapsell, Peter


Osborn, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Donald


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Sir Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pollock, Alexander
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Porter, Barry
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watson, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Roberts, M, (Cardiff NW)
Wickenden, Keith


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sims, Roger
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat.Iain
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry


Squire.Robin





NOES


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Ronald W. Brown and Mr. David Penhaligon.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you ask the tellers to be sure that they have given you the correct vote? Having served on the Committee considering the Bill, I understood that the official Opposition intended to fight the Bill tooth and nail to the bitter end. Have they all gone home?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to refer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) a little earlier, when he said that the remaining hour of guillotined time available to the House to discuss new clauses and schedules was taken up wholly by votes against a series of drafting Government amendments of a technical nature. He made the point at that stage, and a number of hon. Members noted it. However, of course, we can still vote on further drafting amendments. We had assumed that the objections of the official Opposition to

these drafting amendments were so great that they would wish to continue voting against them after the guillotined time had passed, but they do not seem to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have followed the procedures that were agreed in the resolution of the House yesterday.

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 29, line 42, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 147.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 11.

Division No. 161]
[12.20 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Aitken.Jonathan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alexander, Richard
Fox, Marcus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Banks, Robert
Gorst, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gow, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Gray, Hamish


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Greenway, Harry


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Heddle, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Jessel, Toby


Brooke, Hon Peter
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Burden, Sir Frederick
Knox, David


Butcher, John
Lamont, Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carlisle, RtHonM.(R'c'n)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lee, John


Churchill, W.S.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Loveridge, John


Cope, John
Luce, Richard


Corrie, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Cranborne, Viscount
MacGregor, John


Crouch, David
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
McQuarrie, Albert


Dover, Denshore
Madel, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Major, John


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Marland, Paul


Durant, Tony
Marlow, Antony


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Michael(Arundel)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Eggar, Tim
Mates, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Mellor, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony






Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Sims, Roger


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)
Squire, Robin


Monro, Sir Hector
Stainton, Keith


Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stanley, John


Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony


Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Martin


Myles, David
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thompson, Donald


Osborn, John
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Pink, R.Bonner
Wakeham, John


Pollock, Alexander
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Watson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wickenden, Keith


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, William(Streafham)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Silvester, Fred





NOES


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)


Crawshaw, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Howells, Geraint
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tellers for the Noes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Ronald W. Brown and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Steel, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 29, line 43, column 3 at end insert—
'"143(3) and (4)" amd'—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 12.

Division No. 162]
[12.31 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Best, Keith


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone,)
Blaker, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bowden, Andrew


Bendall, Vivian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bright, Graham





Brinton, Tim
MacGregor, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Brooke, Hon Peter
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Buck, Antony
Madel, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Major, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Marland, Paul


Butcher, John
Marlow, Antony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Mates, Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mather, Carol


Churchill, W.S.
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Mayhew, Patrick


Cockeram, Eric
Mellor, David


Colvin, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Corrie, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Crouch, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Monro, Sir Hector


Dorrell, Stephen
Moore, John


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dover, Denshore
Mudd, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Murphy, Christopher


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Myles, David


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Dykes, Hugh
Needham, Richard


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Neubert, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Newton, Tony


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Normanton, Tom


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Osborn, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Fox, Marcus
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Gardiner, George(Reigate)
Parkinson, RtHonCecil


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Percival, Sir Ian


Goodhew, SirVictor
Pink, R.Bonner


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Gorst, John
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Gow, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gray, Hamish
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry
Rathbone, Tim


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hampson, DrKeith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Haselhurst, Alan
Renton, Tim


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawksley, Warren
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Rifkind, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Henderson, Barry
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hicks, Robert
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Hooson, Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sims, Roger


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Robin


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Stainton, Keith


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Stanley, John


Knox, David
Steen, Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Stevens, Martin


Lang, Ian
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lee, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Loveridge, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Luce, Richard
Thompson, Donald


Lyell, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)






Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wheeler, John


Vaughan, DrGerard
Wickenden, Keith


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, HonWilliam
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Walker, B. (Perth)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. John Selwyn Gummer and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Watson, John





NOES


Beith, A.J.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Crawshaw, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Howells, Geraint
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)



Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Ronald W. Brown and Mr. David Penhaligon.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendments made: No 74, in page 29, line 44, column
3 at end insert—
'In section 149(2), the reference to section 7 and the words from "and paragraph (c)" to the end.'

No. 75, in page 29 line 48, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 4, in paragraphs 2(a) and (b), the words from "which consists" to "Schedule 13".

In Schedule 13, paragraph 13.

In Schedule 16, paragraph 23 (9).'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

It being after Midnight, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [20 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question on any new clauses and new schedules moved by a member of the Government.

New Clause 25

CHANGE OF BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT

'.—(1) The amendments set out in Schedule (Change of basis of computation of period of continuous employment) shall have effect for the following purposes—
(a) amending enactments which confer rights by reference to the length of an employee's period of continuous employment so as to substitute for periods expressed in weeks or years of fifty-two weeks corresponding periods expressed in months or years of twelve months;
(b) modifying the computation of an employee's period of continuous employment under Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act so as to provide for computing the length of the period in months and years of twelve months;
(c) making minor and consequential amendments in connection with the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) The amendments set out in Schedule (Change of basis of computation of period of continuous employment) shall not apply—
(a) where the date by reference to which the length of an employee's period of continuous employment falls to be ascertained ("the qualification date") is before the commencement of this section, or

(b) where the result would be to deprive a person of any right or entitlement which he would have had if the qualification date had fallen immediately before the commencement of this section.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the amendments set out in Schedule (Change of basis of computation of period of continuous employment) shall, so far as they relate to the computation of the length of a period of continuous employment, apply to periods before the commencement of this section as they apply to later periods.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect—
(a) any order made before the commencement of this section under section 18, 65 or 96 of the 1978 Act or any corresponding earlier enactment (exclusion of certain sections where equivalent protection afforded by collective agreement or wages order); or
(b) the operation of any agreement or wages order to which such an order relates or the operation of any provision of the 1978 Act in relation to such an agreement or wages order.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule

CHANGE OF BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT

Right to guarantee payment

1. In section 13 of the 1978 Act (general exclusions from the right to a guarantee payment), subsections (1) and (2) shall be renumbered (3) and (4) and the following subsections shall be inserted as subsections (1) and (2)—
(1) An employee shall not be entitled to a guarantee payment unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than one month ending with the day before that in respect of which the guarantee payment is claimed.
(2) An employee who is employed—
(a) under a contract for a fixed term of three months or less, or
(b) under a contract made in contemplation of the performace of a specific task which is not expected to last for more than three months,
shall not be entitled to a guarantee payment unless he has been continuously employed for a period of more than three months ending with the day before that in respect of which the guarantee payment is claimed.".

Right to remuneration on suspension on medical grounds

2. In section 20 of the 1978 Act (general exclusions from the right to remuneration on suspension on medical grounds), subsections (1) and (2) shall be renumbered (3) and (4) and the following subsections shall be inserted as subsections (1) and (2)—
(1) An employee shall not be entitled to remuneration under section 19 unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than one month ending with the day before that on which the suspension begins.
(2) An employee who is employed—
(a) under a contract for a fixed tenn of three months or less, or
(b) under a contract made in contemplation of the performace of a specific task which is not expected to last for more than three months,
shall not be entitled to remuneration under section 19 unless he has been continuously employed for a period of more than three months ending with the day before that which the suspension begins.".

Right to minimum period of notice

3.—(1) In sections 49 and 50 of the 1978 Act (rights of employer and employee to a minimum period of notice) for the words "four weeks" in section 49(1), (2) and (3) and section 50(1) and (2) (which relates to the period of continuous employment necessary before either right arises) there shall be substituted "one month".

(2) In section 49(4) of that Act (which converts into a contract for an indefinite period a contract for a term certain of four weeks or less where the employee has been continuously employed for twelve weeks or more) for the words "twelve weeks" there shall be substituted "three months" and for the words "four weeks" there shall be substituted "one month".

(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
(4A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a contract made in contemplation of the performance of a specific task which is not expected to last for more than three months unless the employee has been continuously employed for a period of more than three months.".

Right to written statement of reasons for dismissal

4. In section 53(2) of the 1978 Act (period of continuous employment after which an employee has a right to a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal) for the words from "twenty-six weeks" onwards there shall be substituted "six months ending with that date".

Right not to be unfairly dismissed

5.—(1) In section 64 of the 1978 Act (qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for "fifty-two weeks" there shall be substituted "one year"; and
(b) in subsection (2) for "fifty-two weeks" and "four weeks" there shall be substituted, respectively, "one year" and "one month".

(2) In section 73(3) of that Act (calculation of basic award for unfair dismissal), in paragraphs (a) and (b) the words "which consists wholly of weeks" shall be omitted.

Rights in connection with redundancy

6.—(1) In section 119(7) of the 1975 Act (exclusion of employees on short-term contracts from protection of provisions requiring consultation and notification in case of certain redundancies) for the words "12 weeks", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "three months"; and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
Section 151 of and Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (computation of period of continuous employment), and any provision modifying or supplementing that section or Schedule for the purposes of that Act, shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as if this subsection were contained in that Act.".

(2) In section 81(4) of the 1978 Act (requisite period qualifying for right to redundancy payment), the words from "excluding any week" onwards (which relate to weeks before the employee attained the age of eighteen) shall be omitted.

(3) In section 104(2) of that Act (exclusion of redundancy rebate where employee's right under collective agreement arises by virtue of a period of employment which is less than one hundred and four weeks)—
(a) for "period of employment" there shall be substituted "period of continuous employment"; and
(b) for "one hundred and four weeks" there shall be substituted "two years".

(4) In section 106(2) of that Act (conditions to be satisfied before an employee can claim his unpaid redundancy payment from the Secretary of State), in paragraph (c) (exclusion where right under collective agreement arises by virtue of a period of employment which is less than one hundred and four weeks)—
(a) for "period of employment" there shall be substituted "period of continuous employment"; and
(b) for "one hundred and four weeks" there shall be substituted "two years".

(5) In Schedule 4 to that Act (calculation of redundancy payment), in paragraph 2(a) and (b) the words "which consists wholly of weeks (within the meaning of Schedule 13)" shall be omitted.

COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT

7.—(1) For section 151 of the 1978 Act (continuous employment) there shall be substituted—

Computation of period of continuous employment.

151.—(1) References in any provision of this Act to a period of continuous employment are, except where provision is expressly made to the contrary, to a period computed in accordance with the provisions of the section and Schedule 13; and in any such provision which refers to a period of continuous employment expressed in months or years a month means a calendar month and a year means a year of twelve calendar months.

(2) In computing an employee's period of continuous employment any question arising as to—
(a) whether the employee's employment is of a kind counting towards a period of continuous employment, or
(b) whether periods (consecutive or otherwise) are to be treated as forming a single period of continuous employment.
shall be determined in accordance with Schedule 13 (that is to say, week by week), but the length of an employee's period of employment shall be computed in months and years of twelve months in accordance with the following rules.

(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an employee's period of continuous employment for the purposes of any provision of this Act begins with the day on which he starts work and ends with the day by reference to which the length of his period of continuous employment falls to be ascertained for the purposes of the provision in question.

(4) For the purposes of section 81 and Schedule 4 an employee's period of continuous employment shall be treated as beginning on his eighteenth birthday if that date is later than the starting date referred to in subsection (3).

(5) If an employee's period of continuous employment includes one or more periods which, by virtue of any provision of Schedule 13, do not count in computing the length of the period but do not break continuity, the beginning of the period shall be treated as postponed by the number of days falling within that intervening period or, as the case may be, by the aggregate number of days falling within those periods.

(6) The number of days falling within such an intervening period is—
(a) in the case of a period to which paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 13 applies, seven days for each week within that sub-paragraph; single period of continuous employment,
(b) in the case of a period to which paragraph 15(2) or (4) of that Schedule applies, the number of days between the last working day before the strike or lock-out and the day on which work was resumed;
c in the case of a period to which paragraph 16(1) of that Schedule applies, the number of days between the employee's last day of employment before service under Part I of the National Service Act 1948 and the day on which he resumed employment in accordance with Part II of that Act.".

(2) In Schedule 13 to that Act (computation of period of employment), for paragraphs 1 and 2 (preliminary provisions) there shall be substituted—

Preliminary

1.—(1) Except so far as otherwise provided by the following provisions of this Schedule, a week which does not count under paragraphs 3 to 12 breaks the continuity of the period of employment.

(2) The provisions of this Schedule apply, subject to paragraph 14, to a period of employment notwithstanding that during that period the employee was engaged in work wholly or mainly outside Great Britain, or was excluded by or under this Act from any right conferred by this Act.

(3) A person's employment during any period shall, unless the contrary is shown, be presumed to have been continuous.".

(3) For paragraph 8 of that Schedule there shall be substituted—

Power to amend paragraphs 3 to 7 by order

8.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—


(a) amend paragraphs 3 to 7 so as to substitute for each of the references to sixteen hours a reference to such other number of hours less than sixteen as may be specified in the order; and
(b) amend paragraphs 6 and 7 so as to substitute for each of the references to eight hours a reference to such other number of hours less than eight as may be specified in the order.

(2) No order under this paragraph shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) The provisions of any order under this paragraph shall apply to periods before the order takes effect as they apply to later periods.".

Minor and consequential amendments relating to sections 1 to 4 of the 1978 Act

8.—(1) In section 1 of the 1978 Act (obligation to give written particulars of terms of employment)—
(a) in subsection (1) (the basic obligation) for the words "the beginning of an employee's period of employment" there shall be substituted "the beginning of an employee's employment"; and
(b) in subsection (2) (matters to be included in the statement) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—
"(c) specify the date on which the employee's period of continuous employment began (taking into account any employment with a previous employer which counts towards that period)."

(2) For section 2(4) of that Act (exclusion of obligation to give written statement where terms the same as those of previous employment) there shall be substituted—

"(4) No statement need be given under section 1 where—
(a) the employee's terms of employment are the same as those of earlier employment with the same employer in respect of which a statement under that section and any information subsequently required under section 4 was duly given, and
(b) that earlier employment ended not more than six months before the beginning of the employment in question;
but without prejudice to the operation of subsection (1) of section 4 if there is subsequently a change in the terms of employment.".

(3) In section 4 of that Act (duty to inform of changes in terms of employment)—
(a) in subsection (4)(b) (change of employer to be treated as change of terms where continuity of employment is not broken) the words from "in accordance with" to "Schedule 13" shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (5) (duty in such a case to specify date from which employment is continuous) for the words "continuous period of employment" there shall be substituted "period of continuous employment".

Employees becoming or ceasing to be excludedfrom ss. 1 to 4.

(4) After section 5 of that Act there shall be inserted—

5A.—(1) Sections 1 to 4 shall apply to an employee who at any time comes or ceases to come within the exceptions from those sections provided for by section 5, 141, 144, 145 or 146(4) to (7), or under section 149, as if his employment with his employer terminated or began at that time.

(2) Subsection (1) of section 1 shall apply to an employee who ceases to come within the exception provided by section 5 with the substitution for the words "three months" of the words "one month".

(3) The fact that section 1 is directed to apply to an employee as if his employment began on his ceasing to come within one of the exceptions referred to in subsection (1) shall not affect the obligation under subsection (2)(b) of that section to specify the date on which his employment actually began.".

(5) In section 146 of that Act (miscellaneous excluded classes of employment)—
(a) in subsection (4) (exclusion of part-time employees from rights which do not depend on a qualifying period of continuous employment), after "sections" there shall be inserted "1, 4,"; and
(b) after subsection (7) there shall be added

"(8) References in subsections (4) to (7) to weeks are to weeks within the meaning of Schedule 13.".

Other consequential amendments

9.—(1) In section 149 of the 1978 Act (which confers a general power to amend the Act by order)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c) (which lists provisions whose operation may be varied or excluded), after "sections" there shall be inserted "13(2), 20(2), 49(4A),": and
(b) in subsection (2) (provisions to which the power does not extend), for "and 142(1)" there shall be substituted ", 142(1) and 151".

(2) In section 157(1) of that Act (reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland) for "sections 1 to 7" there shall be substituted "sections 1 to 6".,

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

To be read the Third time this day.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Education and Training in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day — Rother Valley

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sorry that the Adjournment debate was delayed while the Alliance indulged in the party games that it purports to disapprove of.
I secured a similar debate on 3 December 1981 because of my concern about unemployment in my constituency. At that time, there were 271 teenagers out of work. Unemployment reached 10 per cent. in Dinnington and 8 per cent. in the rest of the constituency. It was clear that the Conservative Government—elected 18 months earlier—were intent on cutting the central stimulus to our local economy. Later they changed course, but a good deal of damage had been done. I suppose that that parallels the present situation and the action taken by the Government in 1979, which was even more unhelpful and confusing.
Within weeks of the last general election, changes in regional policy were announced. The position since then makes the days of 1971 almost halcyon. Today, unemployment is more than twice as high as it was then. In the three employment areas, which do not cover the whole of my constituency, of Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington, there are 14,829 people unemployed. At the last count, there were 120 vacancies. The position is appalling, because that figure of 14,000—or 16,000 in the constituency as a whole—does not include the hundreds of young people on Manpower Services Commission schemes or the many people who are not registered.
Rother Valley is a large constituency, covered by several employment areas. Unfortunately, the serious disparity in the Government's arrangement is now having a grievous effect in my areas. The needs and difficulties are such as to suggest that they should transcend the Government's commitment to maintaining scarcely responsible employment area boundaries. After the Conservative Government's initial errors, there was a change in arrangements in 1972. There must be change in the present arrangements soon. The need for that change is both urgent and essential.
In his reply, the Minister may refer to the increase in national and regional unemployment since the early 1970s. In the hard-hit areas of Rother Valley, the position in the late 1970s gave cause for some hope that the pace of increase would be below the national average. We were making comparative headway. However, the present situation is horrific. In December 1971, I referred to a deputation led by my former colleague and friend Brian O'Malley and I pressed for an improvement in area arrangements and boundaries. That was partly in response to a closure in the industrial area between Rotherham and Sheffield. Today, that area looks like an industrial desert, with a proliferation of "For Sale" boards bearing witness to a past life in which immense wealth was once created.
Unemployment has now reached a level of unanticipated obscenity, and that is another difference compared with 1971. Then, a Conservative Minister agreed to receive the deputation and listened to us courteously. However, the Minister has repeatedly and flatly refused to receive a deputation from my constituency. Although I regret the Alliance's antics, perhaps it is a pity that the Adjournment debate is not

taking place at a much later hour, with the Minister responsible for that refusal in attendance instead of the Under-Secretary of State.
A deputation was received in July 1979, when representatives of the planning committee of the Rotherham borough council and I presented arguments against Government policy. We were received courteously, but the Under-Secretary of State rejected our analysis. However, everything that we said would happen has happened and is happening. Our forecasts were accurate and they justify some action now to make up for the current deficiencies.
There are several different employment areas in my constituency. In the south and south-west, Dinnington covers 11 parishes with a population of 40,000 and an unemployment rate of 26·2 per cent. The South Yorkshire county council had to extract that figure, because the Department of Employment is remarkably secretive about such figures for travel-to-work areas.
Dinnington is now a non-assisted area and according to the Department's figures, the unemployment level is higher than that found in any special development area. It is a scandal that the Government should utterly ignore such need.
In the south-west lies another part of the Sheffield travel-to-work area—Woodhouse—where I estimate unemployment to be about 16 per cent. That is above the 12½ per cent. average of the Sheffield travel-to-work area because the further one moves from the city centre, the worse the prospects for employment become. Much of the central and northern areas lie within the Rotherham employment area. I accept that this is now a development area, and I welcome that. Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of the industrial sites that would serve that development area lie just outside it, and are thus disadvantaged. I have drawn the Department's attention to this great weakness on many occasions, but the response has been disdainful.
The major site is the industrial development area estate at Hellaby. I can throw a stone from that estate into the development area, yet the estate is denied grant. One firm of experienced local solicitors, Graham, Turney and Markhill, has been acting for clients wishing to see development in the Hellaby areas. There is a willing developer if grants were available, but the site desired is a few yards outside the development area, virtually on the boundary. The simple adjustment of those boundaries would bring some welcome jobs to our area, but that adjustment has been denied. Jobs are being forfeited to serve an area where unemployment is fractionally below 18 per cent. The Rotherham development area is the eleventh worst development area in Britain for unemployment.
The Hellaby estate lies within the Maltby employment area, which has the fourth highest unemployment of all the intermediate areas in Britain. That covers the north-eastern part of my constituency where unemployment is about 17 per cent. It is astonishing that we have this disparity, but the position is worse because in the north-east of my constituency, the parishes of Wentworth and Brompton Bierlow lie on the boundary of the Barnsley travel-to-work area. That is close to the Mexborough employment area which covers part of the Dearne Valley constituency. Across the whole of this area, the position is chronic. Even


a southern-oriented Government must recognise that they have a responsibility to an area facing such fearful problems.
I use the word "fearful" advisedly, for the future of this coalfield area is ominous. The collieries that have been the major employers have a limited life and we need now to be preparing a strategy for an alternative economic activity before any more collieries are exhausted. The coal industry has greatly reduced its work force. In all four districts of Yorkshire fewer than 55,000 people are employed by the coal board. Nevertheless, the coal board has sought contain retain juvenile employment in South Yorkshire to about 400 or 500 jobs a year.
This year, 3,000 boys sought apprenticeships. A few years ago, applications scarcely exceeded vacancies and a few years before that, the coal board found it difficult to recruit fully. However, an even greater loss of jobs has been experienced in steel. We have witnessed a steel employment slaughter even where the plants can and do rival their international competition. That applies in the public and the private sectors.
Our traditional employment structure has undergone brutal surgery in the past two or three years. We have the EEC funds to pay skilled, record-breaking steel workers to do cookery, horticulture and home decoration to ease the pangs of redundancy, yet the pangs are only slightly delayed. That contraction of our basic industry means that downstream companies and activities have been affected.
Many smaller firms have experienced great difficulties. I shall quote one as a typical example. Falcian Engineering (Dinnington) Limited is a company that has developed creditably and seen steady growth built on the dedication of its founder, Mr. George Doughty, and the skill of his team of workers. Unfortunately, he operates in the Dinnington area which has 26·2 per cent. unemployment and no aid. He has to compete with firms that are in the development areas, even though unemployment in those areas is only half of that in his own locality.
I spoke to him this morning. Once again, this successful man has had to lay off workers, and he does not like it. He told me that some of those workers were at school with him. Some are young men whom he has trained. It is ridiculous that a man with that go-ahead endeavour has been placed under intolerable strain.
Some time ago, I wrote to the Department about Mr. Doughty's experience. The present Secretary of State for Employment was the Minister in charge. His letter was insulting. Mr. Doughty expressed his view in pungent terms. Men like him must survive; perhaps they will survive; but neither the Government's policy nor our national financial system provide a sufficient support to sustain their desirable activity.
A question was asked in the House today about motivation in our schools. We have excellent schools in Rother Valley—I visit them regularly—but I wonder and worry about the long-term effect on the motivation that so concerned the Secretary of State for Education and Science today. How can we properly motivate our young people when a large proportion of them are denied opportunity when it is time for them to leave school?
There are 1,900 unemployed school leavers in my constituency—not 271 unemployed teenagers as we had 10 years ago. That is after the vigorous efforts of our local authority which provides 452 sponsored places. We also have the substantial contribution from excellent voluntary organisations such as the Rother Valley youth force,
ROMAC, Community Enterprise and Community Industry. All those organisations provide opportunity, but it is an opportunity that now relates to the excessive deterioration in our local economy. It is a deterioration because more than half our unemployed have been out of work for more than six months.
The Minister should understand that there is a growing anger and frustration, particularly in areas such as Maltby, where 1,550 unemployed were chasing 10 vacancies last week. In the Rotherham employment area, 11,450 unemployed were chasing 68 vacancies last month. It is grim enough to justify my call on the Minister to revise his arrangements in South Yorkshire. We need to end the obvious confusion which exists.
The Minister will recall that I wrote to him not very long ago about the possible development in Thurcroft which would have given us some jobs. I sought his help. The Minister kindly replied to tell me about the development area grant which would be available, but unfortunately the area in question lies outside the development area, so his letter was inappropriate. I suggested that he could resolve the confusion by removing these defective boundary arrangements. The Department needs to be more helpful.
In another case, I sought to assist an industrial development when slightly premature action was taken. That was justified by the terms of a Department of Employment press notice, but the strict rules were breached. The support which would have helped us in Rother Valley was forfeited.
We need to see an urgent change. The Minister may not have access to our local media, but I wish that he could read our local weekly newspapers, the Worksop Guardian, the South Yorkshire Times and the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser, close though they are to our local view, because their reports regularly present the sad reality of our anxiety. There has been closure after closure—an inexorable and brutal experience—which are regularly broadcast in BBC Radio Sheffield and Radio Hallam programmes. They are sometimes reported in the Rotherham Star and the Morning Telegraph. For three years, those reports have been bleak. It is time for the Government to accept that that waste and frustration can be little longer tolerated.
I suggest to the Minister that, in responding to my brief speech tonight, he pledges a change in policy that can help and the removal of the dangerous and damaging boundaries that cause anger. I do not wish him to offer platitudes, regrets or even good wishes. We need rather more than that. We need a justified hope that we shall very soon have many jobs before the consequences of the present position become as fearful as many of us in South Yorkshire have begun to believe possible.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) not only on patiently enduring the pointless time-wasting of the SDP and the Liberal Party before we could get to this debate at a late hour but on securing a debate on a subject about which he has shown himself to be deeply concerned tonight and in the frequent correspondence that he has had for some years with my Department and the Department of Employment.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take seriously the many requests that are made to the Department, and


examine carefully the cases that are put. I hope that, if time permits, I can deal with the wider issues that he raised, but I wish to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on the points that he made about assisted area status, the way that it has developed and the effect that it has on his constituency. I am sorry that he still cannot accept the travel-to-work area principle, despite our previous explanations. He will know that assisted area status has been based on that principle by successive Governments for some time, including Governments of his political persuasion. I hope that I can go some way again tonight towards clarifying the position.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he has a large constituency. I sympathise with him, because I am in exactly the same position, with a large and scattered constituency, and I sometimes have difficulty in establishing the precise boundaries for employment. The travel-to-work areas in my constituency straddle local authority and health authority boundaries. I brought a map with me tonight to make sure that I fully understand the areas about which he talked. I recognise the difficulties in that there are parts of no fewer than five travel-to-work areas in his constituency—Maltby, Sheffield, Rotherham, Mexborough and Barnsley. But that illustrates the fact that travel-to-work areas are defined on the basis of patterns of commuting and not by reference to any administrative boundaries, be they county, district or parliamentary. They represent relatively self-contained labour markets. I was going to say that they are unlike parliamentary constituencies, but, as we all know, our constituencies vary greatly in size. These areas represent a different concept from the parliamentary constituency. The Sheffield travel-to-work area has a working population of nearly 300,000, Rotherham about 65,000 and Maltby barely 9,000. That must be borne in mind.
The hon. Gentleman argued that Dinnington is an unemployment black spot whose serious problems are not fully recognised. That is because, he says, the unemployment rates are based on travel-to-work areas and Dinnington's especially high unemployment is therefore hidden in the figures for the Sheffield travel-to-work area of which it forms part. He also argued that there should be changes in some aspects of the boundaries of the travel-to-work areas.
Perhaps I could first explain why a travel-to-work area is the smallest area for which the Department of Employment quotes unemployment rates. A travel-to-work area is intended to represent a relatively self-contained labour market where a significant majority—about 75 per cent.—of those who live in the area also work there and the same significant majority of those who work in the area also live there. As unemployment rates reflect an area's need for jobs, it follows that such rates can be quoted only in respect of relatively self-contained labour markets that broadly include work places, the geographical source of labour demand and homes, the source of labour supply. It is misleading to quote an unemployment rate for an area that is not a self-contained labour market, since it would either under or overstate the area's need for jobs.
Many travel-to-work areas, including those in completely non-assisted areas—I know of some in my part of the world—do have unemployment black spots.
However, people living in the black spots have access to jobs in the wider area. Thus, Dinnington residents have access to jobs in the Sheffield travel-to-work area.
Turning to the question whether it would be more appropriate for Dinnington to be part of the Rotherham travel-to-work area, I understand that the Department of Employment, which established the travel-to-work areas, is satisfied that Dinnington has closer links with Sheffield. During the last review of travel-to-work areas in 1978—I understand that there has been no major change in commuting patterns since—it was found that over half of the employed population living in Dinnington travelled outside the area to work. Therefore, Dinnington clearly cannot be considered as a self-contained labour market.
It was found that of the 52 per cent. of Dinnington residents who travel to work outside the area, 26 per cent. go to Sheffield and only 9 per cent. to Rotherham. People travel to work in other areas, but only relatively small numbers are involved. Hence it is clear that Dinnington's closest associations on travel-to-work patterns are with Sheffield. That was why Dinnington was included within the Sheffield travel-to-work area.
Travel-to-work area boundaries will be reviewed again when the results of the 1981 census are available. The hon. Gentleman may know that the 1971 census information was updated for the 1978 review by local staff of the Department of Employment after consultation with local interests to allow for any significant developments that may have inpinged upon its accuracy. To be fair and consistent in all parts of the country, we need to work on the basis of such factual evidence.
Having established that the assisted area map must be based on travel-to-work areas if it is to make economic sense, and also to ensure consistency around Britain—I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many parts of Britain where small localities, much smaller than an employment office area or a travel-to-work area, could be established as black spots—may I explain the situation in relation to the travel-to-work areas in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to designate those areas for assistance having regard to certain criteria contained in the Industry Act 1972. Those are given as:
all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies.
Hence, although unemployment levels are important in determining an area's assisted area status, other factors must be taken into account, such as the quality of its communications to substantial market centres both at home and abroad via road, rail, sea and air; its geographical position relative to other travel-to-work areas; the Government's overall regional industrial policy; and the representations received on its behalf. In this case, the hon. Gentleman has never failed to keep the problems of his constituency in our minds when regional industrial policy is being considered.
In terms of communications, the Rother Valley is in an excellent position. By road the M1 and M18-A1 provide a direct link both north and south and to the Humber; for rail travel, Doncaster is only a few miles away to provide swift access to markets the length of the country; and in the air I understand that a new service to Brussels has been introduced from the East Midlands airport at Castle Donnington, 40 minutes down the motorway. That should facilitate communications with the all-important markets


of Western Europe. Moreover, not only are road, rail and air communications good, but even on the water, work is progressing on the South Yorkshire navigation canal, which will provide further links with the Humber ports.
I make those points because I receive many deputations about assisted area status and many of them are about peripheral and remote areas that often have poor communications. In balancing what precise assisted area status is relevant for each travel-to-work area, one has to take those factors into account.

Mr. Hardy: I am puzzled that the Minister should say that he receives deputations. Why did his colleagues refuse to receive a deputation from my constituency?

Mr. MacGregor: I receive a wide variety of deputations and representations, some where there are narrowly balanced issues, some from individual delegations. Often they are deputations in writing. All these factors are taken into account when we consider the individual arguments that are advanced.
As for the geographical position of Rother Valley, Maltby, Rotherham and Mexborough will become some of the most favourably positioned assisted areas in the country after August, and should therefore benefit more than most from the reduction in assisted area coverage. I have considered that particularly closely in the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made in the past and in preparation for tonight's debate.
Rotherham and Mexborough have benefited even more directly from the Government's regional industrial policy. The House will know that the Government undertook a thorough review of regional industrial policy and selective financial assistance as soon as we took office in 1979, with the aim of concentrating the assistance available on those parts of the country with the greatest need. From such studies as one can make of the effectiveness of regional policy in the past, it seems that it is most effective when concentrated on the areas of greatest need.
Although one result of the review was that the assisted area coverage of Great Britain should be reduced from 44 per cent. of the working population to 26 per cent., a small number of areas such as Rotherham and Mexborough were given more assistance in recognition of their problems. A large number of areas were downgraded. Rotherham and Mexborough became development areas and will continue to have that status after 1 August, and will accordingly benefit from the range of regional financial assistance, including regional development grant at 15 per cent. It is worth noting that since May 1979 about £7 million has been committed in such assistance to the two travel-to-work areas.
With the concentration of assisted area status the areas that continue to have development area status after 1 August will find that they are more favourably placed than they have been hitherto.
As a result of the 1979 review it was decided that Sheffield, which currently has intermediate area status, should become non-assisted on 1 August. Despite the problems in the coal and steel industries resulting from a fall in demand caused by the world recession, unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area is still barely above the national average, which means that, judged on unemployment grounds alone, it does not have a case for retaining assisted area status.
I am concerned about Maltby's level of unemployment, which was one factor in the 1979 decision that it should retain its assisted area status, since when it has received £0·3 million in regional assistance. It does not, however, have the large numbers of unemployed of Mexborough or Rotherham, which is a factor that has to be taken into account, and I consider it to be correctly designated as an intermediate area.
Conferment of assisted area status is by no means the only way to improve an area's economic circumstances and employment prospects. This is highlighted by Maltby, where the National Coal Board has announced plans for a £130 million investment in the Maltby coalfield, which will be far more than any likely contribution by way of regional financial assistance, even at the highest levels of aid. It will ultimately bring about 600 jobs—

Mr. Hardy: In 1987.

Mr. MacGregor: In considering assisted area status I have set out some of the considerations that are in our minds. We consider constantly the relative position of areas that are suffering from acutely rising levels of unemployment relative to others. We must take into account also the fact that selective financial assistance and regional development grants are only two of the many ways in which areas that are suffering from the need for economic restructuring can be assisted. If time had permitted I would have been able to explain that by means of the product and process development scheme, the small engineering firms investment scheme, small firms policy and other ways we are endeavouring to bring forward a battery of Government policies to aid areas such as the one represented by the hon. Gentleman, which I recognise are suffering extremely difficult times because of the world-wide recession. The hon. Gentleman referred to 1971 but took no account—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One 0' clock.